Slashdot Mirror


Israeli Firm Makes Kilomile Claims For Electric Car Battery Tech

cylonlover writes with this tantalizing excerpt from GizMag "Israel-based company Phinergy claims to have developed metal-air battery technology that promises to end the range anxiety associated with electric vehicles. The company's battery currently consists of 50 aluminum plates, each providing energy for around 20 miles (32 km) of driving. This adds up to a total potential range of 1,000 miles (1,609 km), with stops required only every couple of hundred miles to refill the system with water."

247 comments

  1. batteries are not rechargable by mrvan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA (I know, but there were no comments yet ;-):

    The company says the aluminum plate anodes in its aluminum-air battery have an energy density of 8 kWh/kg, but the batteries are not rechargeable. Once the energy is expended, the plates, which add up to around 55 pounds (25 kg) per battery, need to be replaced. However, the company points out that aluminum is easily recyclable and that swapping the battery out for a fresh one is quicker than recharging.

    That makes it a lot less appealing, I would say...

    1. Re:batteries are not rechargable by santax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will depend on the price. If I can get a new battery like I would get a new gas-container for my cooking needs, no problemo. Just as long as it's at a reasonable price.

    2. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Ksevio · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That would be a big downside - however, they also say they can get it a 200 mile range using Lithium ion batteries which is respectable. It could be that this one time use battery is to quell the complaints of people who say "But what if I want to road trip 500 miles into the middle of no-where!"

    3. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depending on how quickly you go through your plates, maybe.
      But, if plate replacement stations were as common as gas stations are currently, I don't see much of a difference between replacing 55lb of aluminum with 60lb of hydrocarbon.

    4. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I saw 'aluminum plates' and 'refill the water' I was fairly certain I'd seen this before. It's the same reaction as those "water-powered cars" distraction of some years ago. Depending on how you look at it, this is either a slow-burning of aluminum, or an awkward battery that can only be "recharged" by taking it back to the bauxite processing plant and hoping that the plates oxidized in the way that is cheapest to undo.

      I'll pass.

    5. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's moving solids instead of pumping liquids. Like coal. How is it less appealing !?
      You'd be replacing a battery once a week (1,000 miles \ 1,609 km is more like once a month for me...) and it will take about the same time as a fueling. That makes it better and cheaper (we'll see about the aluminum recycling thing...) then pumping gas since we don't have fuel lines to gas stations.

    6. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous, given how energy-intensive it is to produce aluminum in the first place, and that if it was widely adopted you'd need a huge supply of ready-to-swap aluminum batteries. My suspicion: this isn't really a "battery", it's just recovering some of the substantial energy in the aluminum metal itself.

    7. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I kind like that idea.

      Have a rechargeable < 100 KM battery for short everyday commute to and from work, then the long range battery you could buy when planning a > 100 KM trip.

      The challenge would be to make them cheap and easy to swap.

    8. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      If the batteries are easy to swap out, it would make "recharging" much faster compared to the Tesla's current approach that requires long waits. I don't think this is a major downside if the process can be optimized; it will just be different than the current way we think about refueling a vehicle.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    9. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is the generic aluminium energy storage conversion? We've seen model cars running on scraps of soda cans and whatnot before. Producing aluminium requires enormous amounts of electricity. I wonder what the actual cost per mile will be and how efficient this system will be compared to "classic" battery systems.

    10. Re:batteries are not rechargable by rlwhite · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The article says the battery contains 55 lb of aluminum. The price of aluminum currently fluctuates in the general vicinity of $1 per lb, so we're talking at least $50 in raw materials. Add in other materials, manufacturing costs, and profit, and I'm going to guess a $100 battery is not out of the question. Maybe $75 if we're lucky. That sounds high as a gas replacement initially, but if it truly gets 1,000 miles on the aluminum battery and we compare it to a gas-sipping car (we'll say 50mpg), the gas at $3.50/gal would cost $70 for 1,000 miles. When you consider how few cars in the US get that good of mileage and the ever-climbing price of gas, we are probably somewhere close to a break-even point economically.

    11. Re:batteries are not rechargable by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that would be better than a tiny combustion engine and gas tank for long range, all things considered.

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    12. Re:batteries are not rechargable by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's ridiculous, given how energy-intensive it is to produce aluminum in the first place, and that if it was widely adopted you'd need a huge supply of ready-to-swap aluminum batteries. My suspicion: this isn't really a "battery", it's just recovering some of the substantial energy in the aluminum metal itself.

      That's what all batteries do, electrochemically recover, at a rate more or less matched to the application, the chemical potential energy of what they are filled with. Some are also capable of being driven in reverse, to restore them to their original state. Others depend on electrochemistry that isn't so neatly reversible within the confines of a conveniently sized battery, and have to be broken down for recycling. Aluminum is the latter, unless you are willing to pop an entire aluminum smelter into your battery bay.

      Aluminum makes the point particularly obvious because the most cost-effective refining process is very similar indeed to driving an aluminum-air battery in reverse, so the amount of electricity going in is blatantly visible(unlike metals for which non-electrochemical refining processes are preferred).

    13. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Well if the metal is storing the energy, then that makes it an energy storage device doesn't it?

      Or are AA alkalines not batteries in your view?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    14. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Add in the option of drive-thru refill stations where you part-exchange your battery for a fully charged one and it becomes very interesting.

    15. Re:batteries are not rechargable by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      The old battery will definitely have good recycling value - so you may discount part of the cost of materials there, as you're normally swapping them out. Just like with a gas cylinder for cooking gas (you only once pay a deposit for the cylinder, after that for the gas only).

      What you did not add though, is the cost of the energy that is stored in those batteries. The energy those batteries provide comes from somewhere, and is certainly not free.

    16. Re:batteries are not rechargable by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      A nice radioisotopic generator to trickle-charge you on your way is the obvious solution!

      (As a bonus, what asshole would be dumb enough to cut you off if you have several kilograms of plutonium onboard?)

    17. Re:batteries are not rechargable by robot256 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Putting some aluminum plates in a bucket of acid is a lot simpler than an internal combustion engine. No moving parts, no maintenance (even when you're not using it), no exhaust or emissions to regulate. People take gas engines for granted, but the honest truth is that they are ridiculously overcomplicated if all you want it to get from point A to point B. Electric motors win every time, so long as you can give them enough electrons.

    18. Re:batteries are not rechargable by rlwhite · · Score: 2

      Yes, I didn't think to mention that recyclers are buying aluminum around $0.50/lb.

    19. Re:batteries are not rechargable by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Don't forget transport costs. Fuel has to be transported to your local gasstation and it has to carried along in the car itself.

      Gasoline weighs roughly 6 lb/gallon (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_gallon_of_gasoline_weigh).
      An average car drives 20 miles/gallon (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_gas_mileage_of_the_average_car)
      So gasoline weighs some 0.3 lb/mile.

      These batteries weigh 55 lb per 20 miles; 2.75 lb/mile; roughly 9 times more.

      Also note that fuel is used up while driving, the batteries presumably aren't; on average you carry the weight of half a tank of gasoline, while you carry the full weight of the batteries while driving.
      Nor does used fuel require recycling or transport cost from the gasstation.

      Then there's the question of exactly how clean it is to recycle the aluminium (environment is pretty much the primary reason for fuel-cells).

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    20. Re:batteries are not rechargable by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you did not add though, is the cost of the energy that is stored in those batteries.

      He did: the price of bulk refined aluminium includes the energy cost of the electricity used to refine it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:batteries are not rechargable by kencurry · · Score: 2

      I just skimmed TFA, but I didn't see any details of the electrochemistry. So this is only a guess, but I think the Al gets turned over to Al2O3, which provides the current to run the motor. If that is true, than you can't just recycle the spent mass, you have to convert it back to a metal, then you can recycle it. Doable, but not cheap.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    22. Re:batteries are not rechargable by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Among other things, if you move the electrical generating and consumption parts to large-scale nuclear and recycle the aluminum elsewhere, 'pollution' by the car is relocated where it is lessened or easier to manage. Choose some other form of electricity generation if you want, most are probably cleaner than an IC engine.

      There is an opportunity here, but I'm suspicious of the recycling thing.

      Wake me up when we have a couple other ideas for using relatively plentiful raw materials, and we can justify opening up old landfills to salvage them. I know, that is a hugely complex idea, but some day it may actually work. We may even get incinerators that work, ya never know about those crazy researchers...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    23. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hang on a sec; the *battery* contains 55lb of Al, and the *battery* provides power for 1,000 miles. So, that translates to 0.055 lb/mile, which is significantly smaller than gasoline.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    24. Re:batteries are not rechargable by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      The plutonium radioisotopic generator would need to produce 1.21 GW. Great Scott, it's the Libyans!

    25. Re:batteries are not rechargable by bigtomrodney · · Score: 1

      No moving parts, no maintenance

      Let's see you couple that battery directly to a wheel and see how far that gets you moving before you wish you had moving parts between them. I am looking forward to electric cars being more common but blind optimism doesn't help, the fact is you still need an electric motor and batteries have too small a charge, too short a life and too much environmental impact.

      You still have maintenance on the electric motor, you still have a motor and you still have toxic emissions albeit they are now suspended until the battery replacement.

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    26. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 50 plates, each of which provides 20 miles worth of energy. The 50 plates weight .5KG each, or a little over 1 pound. So you're talking about more like 1/20lb per mile, 0.05lb/mile. That's a lot better than the gasoline.

    27. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      It could be that this one time use battery is to quell the complaints of people who say "But what if I want to road trip 500 miles into the middle of no-where!

      Well, maybe, but now you're just substituting one kind of range anxiety for another. Now instead of worrying about getting stranded, people will be worried about having to replace an expensive aluminum-battery.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    28. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Big+Nemo+'60 · · Score: 1

      Well, aluminium is also known as "solid electricity", I guess this just gives the expression a new meaning...

      I wonder how efficient would be the process of recycling the spent aluminium plates, compared with recharging a conventional battery of comparable power. We should also take logistic costs into account - that is a lot of mass to collect from service stations, recycle, and then redistribute to service stations. I guess you could use electric trucks for that. I also wonder how that would compare with the logistics of fossil fuels distribution.

      Having to stop for adding water sounds odd, even if this is an experimental rig. Why not have a water tank and a pump? (OK that could get interesting in winter, I doubt you can add antifreeze to the water that goes into the battery...)

      Energy density is what makes this interesting - after all, energy density is the Holy Grail of battery technology for electric cars. 8 kWh/kg are 28800 kJ/kg (if my math is right!), that really seems a lot - according to Wikipedia, energy density for Li-ion batteries is 460 kJ/kg - that is a 60 to 1 ratio! (I still think there is something wrong with my math!) Battery weight should also be taken into account when evaluating overall energy efficiency of such a system - after all, an electric car must also carry around the weight of the battery.

      Besides that, this sounds fun. Refuelling would be similar to swapping batteries into a toy car, just much bigger.

      --
      In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
    29. Re:batteries are not rechargable by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except these batteries generate electricity by turning aluminium into aluminium oxide. Admittedly it will be nice pure oxide that can go straight back to the electrolytic smelter to be turned back into aluminium. However it cannot be just melted back into aluminium and is more like $300 per tonne.

    30. Re:batteries are not rechargable by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Gasoline weighs roughly 6 lb/gallon (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_gallon_of_gasoline_weigh).
      An average car drives 20 miles/gallon (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_gas_mileage_of_the_average_car)
      So gasoline weighs some 0.3 lb/mile.

      These batteries weigh 55 lb per 20 miles; 2.75 lb/mile; roughly 9 times more.

      Your comparison is flawed. You're measuring the weight of 1 gallon of fuel that goes 20 miles to the weight of 50 aluminum plates that weight 55 lbs combined that goes 1000 miles.

      If you're going to compare lbs/mile, it would be 55lbs/1000miles or .055lb/mile. Divide the weight and miles by 50 if you are looking at only individual plates, but the answer is still the same.

    31. Re:batteries are not rechargable by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      The maintenance on an electric motor is a tiny tiny fraction of that on any internal combustion engine.

    32. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So? You pay $100/$200 deposit on the battery and exchange it for a fully charged one for the cost of charging/recycling. The deposit will either be a one off or a reoccurring anual fee as opposed to $50 per tank of gas. Im guessing however forecourt storage of both full and empty batteries will likely be an issue, especially if it has to share space with the existing underground gas bunkers.....

      Still, I havent RTFA so what do I know....

    33. Re:batteries are not rechargable by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Another thing to consider is the price of the car itself, though. Even if these batteries end up with a running cost of $2.00/gal equivalent, how much cheaper would an electric car be without the expensive batteries and charging circuitry. An electric motor by itself is going to be a lot cheaper to make (and definitely to maintain) than an ICE.

      Even if it's not as cheap to run as a rechargeable electric, it might still be cheaper to own than an ICE-powered car, and actually affordable by the masses.

    34. Re:batteries are not rechargable by gutnor · · Score: 1

      Actually you would need a network like Tesla supercharger network for this to really work. As long as you bought the initial battery, you can swap it for only the cost of energy (profit included with a small recycling fee) from the network of power stations.

      Problem of that, according to Tesla, is that there is significant technical challenge to swap battery pack in a reliable way and it also limit the design and location of those packs. But then of course, their battery pack has different constraints.

      Anyway that's not the first claim of wonderful battery. After all the claim and prototypes we have seen in the last decade we should have supercapacitor powered car with 1000+ miles that charge in a few minutes.

    35. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous, given how energy-intensive it is to produce aluminum in the first place, and that if it was widely adopted you'd need a huge supply of ready-to-swap aluminum batteries.

      Ever seen a beer can? Aluminum. Producing aluminum from bauxite is energy-intensive, recycling aluminum is not.

      My suspicion: this isn't really a "battery", it's just recovering some of the substantial energy in the aluminum metal itself.

      Oh, FFS, how do you think a carbon-zinc battery works? Where did you get the idea that a battery has to be rechargable to be a battery? It's called a "battery" because it gains voltage by having a battery of cells inside it. That nine volt carbon battery in your smoke alarm is actually six small 1.5 volt batteries stacked together.

    36. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Githaron · · Score: 1

      You can probably take out the material costs past the first battery. If this tech became common place you would probably get a "core" deduction for trading out batteries.

    37. Re:batteries are not rechargable by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Well, it's perfect if you're looking to build a disposable car. Drive it 1,000 miles, toss it in the trash.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    38. Re:batteries are not rechargable by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      This kind of battery design (assuming it actually works) could be really useful.

      The swapping-out part has to be solved (weight will be an issue when handling manually), but that's imho a matter of proper design, and is just a technical issue that can be solved.

      The great thing of a battery like this is that the recharge problem is basically solved. No lengthy waits (swap out the batteries - can probably be done in a matter of minutes), no loss of capacity over the years (always a new battery), no massive spikes in electricity demand like supercapacitors would need for their quick recharge.

    39. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Except that in something like a lead battery or catalytic converter the used core is just a mechanically degraded version of the original material, which can be recycled fairly easily. In this case though the aluminum plates are probably electrochemically converted back to an ore-like state. Quite pure, but still requiring the enormous amounts of energy to convert back to a metal which is responsible for much of the expense of aluminum.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    40. Re:batteries are not rechargable by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      You forget within that kilomile you'll need to 'refuel' the 'battery' a few times with water (and I guess it won't be regular tap-water).. Also let's not forget that shipping al those replacement batteries are propably more costly (and therefore raising the price of one) than having a regular tanker..

    41. Re:batteries are not rechargable by hurfy · · Score: 1

      sigh

      And none of the above note the fact that there is more to the battery than JUST those alum plates. How much is the other plates in there? The electrolyte? The water? Something to hold them together and a box to contain it all? Maybe even some hardware to enable those swaps?

    42. Re:batteries are not rechargable by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Not for military applications...where silence and long range are paramount...or when the device detonates upon arriving at its destination. Or as a supplemental battery to provide emergency power.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    43. Re:batteries are not rechargable by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ever seen a beer can? Aluminum. Producing aluminum from bauxite is energy-intensive, recycling aluminum is not.

      Except that the waste product of this battery is aluminium oxide, so you have to reduce it again. It's no different from bauxite in that respect.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    44. Re:batteries are not rechargable by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The comparison was between using an electric motor that could use two different types of batteries one for short range and one for long range; and an electric motor and for short range with a combustion engine for long range.

      So both have an electric motor and all the support work for using that and hence maintenance on that is irrelevant when comparing the two options.

    45. Re:batteries are not rechargable by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      To put some perspective on your point consider that a pre-paid replacement battery set for a Tesla is $12,000 I would say that they have some headway to work with. That figure is what they estimate the price will drop down to in several years, and for insurance purposes the batteries have a listed replacement cost of $30,000.

      The real question is how long can these batteries last for like kind performance and life (number of recharge cycles etc)? Once you have that you can perform an apples to apples comparison.

    46. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gasoline also has to be held in something within a car too...

      If the issue is the transportation to the gas station, then with decent design there shouldn't be much more than the aluminum plates to be concerned with (plus water, but that is usually a lot easy to transport). If concerned with the weight of the vehicle, that is a whole different mess as it is not just the fuels, but the difference between an IC engine and an electric motor, and all the related parts.

    47. Re:batteries are not rechargable by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's a battery! The *entire idea* is to put energy into something so you can get it out later.

      You want to the most energy intensive (per unit weight assuming reasonable density) thing to produce you can find for which the reverse reaction is controllable.

    48. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      batteries have too small a charge, too short a life and too much environmental impact.

      Isn't this in response to a story with a technology that could challenge all three of those points? The vehicle has enough of a range, and while the batteries are not rechargeable, the component that has to be replaced is pretty simple. Production of aluminum from bauxite (and potentially from recycled plates from the battery) is over 60% efficient in terms of chemical energy available in the aluminum versus what goes into making it, and doesn't require some of the exotic materials that other batteries do. There is just the question of whether this tech can be made marketable and live up to its claims, which is a big question still of course.

    49. Re:batteries are not rechargable by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Motor on each wheel for awesome AWD and computer slip/stability control. No axles, just shielded and thoroughly protected wires. If one motor dies, now you have front wheel drive.

      Not to mention you can turn in your own footprint in circles. Also, no more differentials, perfect variable power turning.

    50. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add the weight of the battery to the electric cables and the motors and then compare that to a gasoline engine, transmission, and differential, not to mention the average weight of the gas and the gas tank. This is going to be significantly less weight.

    51. Re:batteries are not rechargable by gutnor · · Score: 1

      Not disagreeing, just a bit meh after a decade of revolutionary promises and zero revolutionary product. BTW I could use also use those fuel cell battery pack for my laptop and phone. The prototypes were great: days of autonomy instead of hours, topup with cheap lighter fluid. Still waiting.

    52. Re:batteries are not rechargable by spitzak · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the electricity is "stored" in the fact that there is pure aluminum in there. Therefore the "electrical generation" is really "aluminum smelting" (which does use a lot of electricity, so this makes sense) and the manufacture of the battery. Basically the battery comes out of the factory fully-charged. It also sounds like the used battery is pretty much really clean aluminum ore and thus the recycling would be done at the same place. Both could be powered by your nuclear plants.

    53. Re:batteries are not rechargable by operagost · · Score: 1

      There's also water involved, and I don't see how much that weighs.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    54. Re:batteries are not rechargable by operagost · · Score: 1

      We don't need to deal with the Libyans, now that plutonium is available at Rite-Aid.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason we call aluminum solidified electricity around here...

      One problem with this non-rechargeable design is that you will need some other temporary storage unit to do regenerative braking and get efficient city/stop-and-go driving. A lot of the benefit of electric over internal combustion is in being able to recapture momentum instead of turning it all into waste heat. This is why hybrids get such better mileage even though they still produce all their energy by internal combustion.

    56. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Congratulations. You have "discovered" what space programs have already known for decades - the Gibbs free energy change of elemental aluminum converted to aluminum chloride or aluminum oxide is massive. Among the largest there is for a chemical reaction. Several times greater than that of hydrogen converted to water or carbon dioxide (which is the basis for energy release in hydrocarbon fuels). That's why aluminum is a popular fuel in solid rocket boosters. On a per-mole basis, it's much better at storing energy. And it's still pretty competitive on a per-weight basis.

    57. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they also did not account for the fuel tank, or the fuel pump.

      This game is fun.

    58. Re:batteries are not rechargable by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The energy cost would be on the reverse end. You subtract how much you get back when you exchange the aluminum oxide. The cost of the energy should be less than the cost of the aluminum.

    59. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Probably that horribly expensive 'Distilled Water' that you can get for $0.80/gal at the grocery store.

    60. Re:batteries are not rechargable by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      An extra capacitor could probably take care of that. Capacitors are quite good at keeping a large charge for a relatively short time. Perfect for start-stop driving. You will lose any leftover charge when you park the car for more than a few minutes, though.

    61. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Motor on each wheel for awesome AWD and computer slip/stability control. No axles, just shielded and thoroughly protected wires. If one motor dies, now you have front wheel drive.

      Not to mention you can turn in your own footprint in circles. Also, no more differentials, perfect variable power turning.

      Truly an awesome design, I'd love such a thing myself, especially if there was some sort of limited scope for tinkering with it.

      I am curious though: anyone here with better understanding of suspension than myself who can explain the effects on handling and ride comfort that comes with running that much unsprung weight?

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    62. Re:batteries are not rechargable by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      add tax to the aluminium price.

      cue the articles billing this as a car that runs on water...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    63. Re:batteries are not rechargable by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Recycling is doable with electrolysis. It will still not be more expensive than buying aluminum plates so I cannot understand the disagreement.

    64. Re:batteries are not rechargable by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Plus when the motors are in the wheels like they are on most EVs you end up with a much nicer cabin due to not having to devote much of the space to the drive train and gear system. You can have a flat floor and loads of cargo space.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    65. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and depending on the recycling efficiency these battereis may actually be a brilliant way to harness that solid electricity in a relatively cheap and stable form - 50lbs of aluminum would be far less worrying in a collision than 20-30 gallons of gasoline, though there's still the electrolyte to worry about.

      The article secifically mentions the use of these batteries as range extenders, so presumably they'd be used in vehicles that also have rechargable batteris. The rechargables get used 95% of the time, providing all the benefits of regenerative braking and cheap overnight charging, and the extenders get used for road trips and free you from worrying about getting stuck when your daily travels occasionally exceed the rechargable's capacity. Personally I'd want a system that had at least 2-3 seperate extender batteries that get drained sequentially so that I could "top off the tank" at my leisure by trading in the completely dead batteries while still having plenty of backup power, and never having to trade in a battery that still has a fair amount of charge just because I know I'm going to need closer to the maxiumum range. A smaller size would also allow it to scale better - if someone never travels more than say 500 miles at a time by car then there's no reason they shouldn't be able to save money and weight/efficiency by only using half as many extender batteries.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    66. Re:batteries are not rechargable by soundguy · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but...

      Assuming 50 lbs for 1k miles or thereabouts, you could probably build a 500 lb car (glass, electronics, frame, suspension, motors, interior, HVAC) and then add around 2500 lbs of batteries, constructed and arranged in a manner that provides structural integrity and enhances handling & stabilty, maybe even providing the actual exterior surface of the vehicle. That's roughly the weight of a modern ICE passenger car and it would give you about 50k miles of travel. The only real maintenance would be adding water, greasing the few moving parts, and washing the windows now and then.

      I think the average person puts about 10k miles on a car per year, so you could drive it 5 years and then recycle the entire thing. If it was constructed with easy dismantling in mind and made from fully recyclable materials, it would indeed be a near-perfect "disposable car".

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    67. Re:batteries are not rechargable by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Single-wheel motors will be even smaller than the central motors used in most cars now. When you consider that the Model S has two watermelon-sized motors to power the whole car, there really won't be that much extra unsprung weight after you take out the drive shafts. The handling will be phenomenally improved by having perfectly distributed torque that you won't even notice the suspension change.

    68. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're oxidizing the aluminum anywhere close to completely then the electricity cost used in refining it will be required again to return it to aluminum metal. It's not like recycling metallic aluminum

    69. Re:batteries are not rechargable by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      Or just include a conventional lithium or lead-acid battery that's big enough to store, oh, 10% of the energy present in the primary "battery" (though to me, if you have to keep adding water, it sounds like it acts more like a one-time-use fuel cell).

      Capacitors are fine and all, but I think you underestimate how much energy will be stored, or for what length of time. Why throw away all that recovered energy at the end of the day?

    70. Re:batteries are not rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would depend upon the environmental impact of the recycling issue, as well as cost. A thousand miles would let me drive from Chicago to NYC or Boston or Denver before swapping out the battery. Right now, in my Toyota Camry that gets 30 mpg on the highway would take about 35 gallons, which at $4 USD per gallon is $140 (give or take). So, as a consumer, what would be my cost to swap out the battery?

    71. Re:batteries are not rechargable by nobodie · · Score: 1

      and remember that Shah Agassi, (who first promoted the refill station where you drive in, have the battery dropped into a pit-like bay serviced by a machine, have a new battery popped in and drive away in the same time it would take to refill your car's gas tank) has some kind of deal worked with Israel where he hopes to make the entire country transport electric ASAP (maybe we can guess why they want to do that). Clearly this research is focused on his needs, and would fit in perfectly with his vision and goals, thus pushing forward the transport goals of the country.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. Thats.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    a fuel cell, not a battery.

    1. Re:Thats.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      a fuel cell, not a battery.

      No, it's a battery, or at least other designs on the same principle are counted as such. 'Primary Cells' that depend on non-reversible(in the context of the battery, reactions are generally reversible under some conditions) electrochemical reactions, including ones that incorporate air to reduce battery weight are true batteries, and quite common. Zinc-air(just distract an old person for a second and yoink their hearing aid, should be one inside) are the ones you see most commonly. There are other potential elements beside zinc; but some have worse energy densities and others are rather trickier or more badly behaved(Despite its phenomenal energy density, I suspect that the Beryllium-Air cell won't be setting the world on fire anytime soon, and the Lithium-air cell will be doing so only in the literal sense, and not in the market-adoption sense).

      Aluminum-air apparently has some obnoxious properties that make building good batteries tricky(Aluminum oxidizes quite readily; but aluminum oxide forms a very effective passivating layer. Good if you want structural aluminum to not crumble in minutes, less good if you want your battery to finish consuming its aluminum electrode...) There are various clever techniques being explored to work around these problems; but they generally mean more complex electrode structures, and thus more costly batteries, than just shoving plates of aluminum sheet stock into the electrolyte bath.

    2. Re:Thats.. by aplcomp · · Score: 1

      ZnO from Zinc-Air batteries/cells can be recovered to Zn also by carbothermal method By heating ZnO to 1200C and adding pure C in the regen. process. Heating can be done by charcoal/peat ie. by renewables. The energy efficiency of recovery is almost 30%, not including the cooling of vaporized zinc. Energy density if Zn-Air cells is better than Al

  3. I have scam artist anxiety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Give me a break. What's the energy density being claimed here?

    "The company says the aluminum plate anodes in its aluminum-air battery have an energy density of 8 kWh/kg, but the batteries are not rechargeable. Once the energy is expended, the plates, which add up to around 55 pounds (25 kg) per battery, need to be replaced. However, the company points out that aluminum is easily recyclable and that swapping the battery out for a fresh one is quicker than recharging."

    Oh I see, so one anxiety is traded for another...

  4. Unit of measure confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Kilomile? Yes, let's combine two units of measure arbitrarily.

    1. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A kilo is not a unit, it is a prefix meaning 10^3. One kilomile = 1000 miles.

    2. Re: Unit of measure confusion by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you are also okay with a decipound, two kiloinches and three millifeet?

    3. Re: Unit of measure confusion by meza · · Score: 1

      I'm not the original AC, but my short answer is: Yes. Maybe it's related to me being a european, and brought up on the "metric" system. But I don't think I would hesitate for a nanoyear to mix any prefix with any unit.

    4. Re: Unit of measure confusion by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix

      Specifically, see the section entitled Non-Metric Units. It would appear it's uncommon but perfectly valid. Who woulda thunk it?

    5. Re: Unit of measure confusion by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Exercise your mental agility. You can do it, and without Python. Trust me, I dunnit before.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the context and what you mean by "valid." It is valid in the sense it is perfectly clear what it means to anyone familiar with the prefixes and the unit being prefixed. Although, which ones various standards bodies and de facto conventions use may make it less valid in other contexts. The kilopound and microinch have their uses in some areas, but not so much say the milliinch which has its own name, and those may not be accepted in other contexts.

    7. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are also okay with a decipound, two kiloinches and three millifeet?

      Goes to show you how much imperial units sucks. We have no problem with decimeter, kilolitres, or milliampheres (or any mixture of prefix with any SI units) at all.

    8. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you're not? Surely you use KB, MB, GB, and TB on a regular basis, and they're far greater affronts to uniformity and consistency of prefix usage than any of the examples you've cited, all of which are technically correct despite being non-traditional.

    9. Re: Unit of measure confusion by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      Electronics manufacturers routinely use milli inch = 1/1000 of inch. I think kilo pound is also common to avoid inconsistent definitions of ton.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    10. Re: Unit of measure confusion by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, "megatons" are a fairly popular unit of measure (both in "1 million tons mass/weight" and in "million tons of TNT equivalent" senses)

    11. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Sunshinerat · · Score: 2

      Dont forget the 2 kilo libraries of congres uom: 2 kloc.

      --
      Load New Commander (Y/N)?
    12. Re: Unit of measure confusion by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Electronics manufacturers routinely use milli inch = 1/1000 of inch. I think kilo pound is also common to avoid inconsistent definitions of ton.

      Not to be confused with the circular mil (cmil) which is actually a unit of area, and is typically used to indicate the cross-sectional area of conductors in a cable.

      Essentially it's the area of a circle whose diameter equals one thousandth of an inch.

      And now, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast... :o)

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    13. Re: Unit of measure confusion by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I dunno, "megatons" are a fairly popular unit of measure (both in "1 million tons mass/weight" and in "million tons of TNT equivalent" senses)

      1000kg is a ton(ne), and is metric (but not SI). Megaton means 1,000,000,000kg, or 1 gigagram, 1Gg.

    14. Re: Unit of measure confusion by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      So we drop inches, ounces, and fluid ounces, add add SI prefixes to Mile, Pound, and Gallon. We keep our much cooler sounding "imperial units", gain the ease of using base 10 divisions, and the metric system can go suck it!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    15. Re: Unit of measure confusion by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I use KB when I'm talking about 1000 bytes, KiB when I'm talking about 1024 bytes. It's not rocket surgery.

    16. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean 1 teragram, 1Tg. The "k" contributes 3 extra zeroes, 1,000,000,000kg = 1,000,000,000,000g

    17. Re: Unit of measure confusion by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I think you mean 1 teragram, 1Tg. The "k" contributes 3 extra zeroes, 1,000,000,000kg = 1,000,000,000,000g

      Yes, correct. Silly me!

    18. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Fair enough (and clearly not the response I was expecting), but even if you make the distinction between MB and MiB, that is not an adequate explanation for your unease in using SI prefixes with inches and feet while tolerating them with bytes.

      Consider: a mile breaks into 5280 feet (i.e. 5280 of a different unit of measurement); a foot breaks into twelve inches (i.e. twelve of a different unit of measurement); and bytes are broken up into eight bits (i.e. you get the picture). None of them are broken up according to the SI convention that would have them in ten equal parts derived from the same base unit but using a different prefix (e.g. a meter breaks up into ten decimeters, which each break up into ten centimeters, etc.).

      As such, I remain unsure how you can accept using SI prefixes with bytes yet not be willing to accept their use with inches and feet. The only explanation I can think of (aside from you simply not liking them because you're not used to them) is that it's because of social norms not aligning with those uses while aligning with the use of "megabyte". But if we were to allow social norms to dictate practices in areas such as these that are so far removed from common culture, we'd have to scrap the vast majority of prefix+unit combinations on account of their infrequent use in common culture, despite their usefulness in the scientific community. Clearly that's a poor argument.

      Long story short: I still don't understand why you think those aren't okay, other than that you're not used to them.

    19. Re: Unit of measure confusion by otuz · · Score: 1

      Conversion between for instance volume and length units would still suck if you stay with the US customary units. Why not just cube miles for volume, if your length unit is a mile?

    20. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Still, using a SI-prefix with an imperial unit is just wrong.

    21. Re: Unit of measure confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily that is a pretty rare conversion for anyone outside the sciences, and those nerds all use that uncool metric stuff anyway.

  5. Bad headline. Not rechargeable - it's a fuel cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounded exciting, clicked the link, but it is NOT RECHARGEABLE. As in, you have to throw the aluminum battery away once you've used it. Even the company say it's a "range extender" to use alongside a lithium battery, and as for the 1000 miles, I don't see any evidence for that in the article.

  6. 'Refill with water every 200 mi' by sonnejw0 · · Score: 1

    So the battery supposedly has a 1,000 mile range, but you have to stop every 100 to 200 miles to refill it with water? ... So it only has a 100-200 mile range. And on top of that, it's a disposable (recyclable) battery, not a rechargable one ... pros and cons to that, but it does require an infrastructure of replacement battery stations. Certainly better in my opinion than a charging station, but at least charging stations exist.

    1. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when you suddenly require infrastructure, you get problems. We have gas stations. Now we need battery stations? Charging stations are easy enough, parking garages can provide them and they're easy to install--but the electrical power infrastructure itself needs upgrades. Again, we already have gas stations, and those were slow enough to get rolled out (but they rolled out naturally as cars rolled out), so the problems of initial deployment weren't as severe as the problems of changing or, worse, fragmenting technology (the overhead of all this fragmented infrastructure is huge).

    2. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every 1,000 miles replacement is worthwhile. Lot less infrastructure for that, and water? Easily sourced today. I'll be honest, I've not see a gas station without some water supply.

    3. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by PseudoCoder · · Score: 1

      These things look like blocks that could eventually mature into a technology you can just swap in and out. The issue of initial deployment would be much more easily reachable if a facility just swaps used blocks for new ones. Eventually, (a "station" so to speak) only involves storing new and used cells and providing water for the process, and maybe some chips or chewing gum for on the road. Not nearly the same environmental implications and regulations of putting a fuel tank underground. You could have these stations anywhere, maybe even built into hardware stores, SuperStores, etc. I could see that as a shorter path to infrastructure development.

      --
      "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    4. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if the 1000 mile range is the limit of this battery. Once you hit that the battery is done. They article calls this an air battery yet it needs water. Why not just go the hydrogen route? Aluminum with gallium and water. Use gallium to stop aluminum for forming that protective layer. Aluminum minus the protection will react with water to produce hydrogen gas.

    5. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      The existing gas stations can easily double as battery stations, too.

      Charging stations are much harder because, as you say yourself, the electricity grid is not up to the extra loads (and probably the power plants neither - there is not that much extra generator capacity available).

    6. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the infrastructure to distribute WATER will need to be built? That water is not something that is commonly widely distributed already?

    7. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Get a bigger water tank, and automatic refill system. Or maybe I'm thinking too simple now?

    8. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by robot256 · · Score: 1

      By and large, the U.S. power grid is in a very good position to support the adoption of electric vehicles while still reducing emissions. This can not be said about some places, such as India and China, whose power plants are more dirty than gasoline cars.

    9. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      No, he said you need an infrastructure to distribute batteries.

      I would contribute that the required quantity of water for any distance is not specified in the article - kinda makes it hard to judge how practical this is. Are we talking coke can or jerry can per 100mi?

    10. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Get a bigger water tank, and automatic refill system. Or maybe I'm thinking too simple now?

      You're not thinking simple enough. Hint: The driver is sucking down a 64 ounce Big Gulp every two hours...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by DrXym · · Score: 1

      That's the concept of Better Place which is developing tech so you drive up to to a ramp, a robot swaps out the old batteries, puts in new ones and off you go. They have pilots going on in various places though the company seems to be experiencing some difficulties with recent layoffs.

    12. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by cusco · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking about Michigan winters. The expansion of ice when it freezes can do pretty impressive things.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    13. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Easily sourced today. I'll be honest, I've not see a gas station without some water supply.

      Yes, in the toilets (US "Rest Room"?). Apart from that, in the UK they usually have a combined tyre air and water dispenser on the forecourt, buy they always charge money for air and very often for the water too. That's why I carry a plastic bottle and refill it from a toilet sink tap if I need to.

      One thing is certain, if they set up facilities to dispense water for these batteries they would charge extortionately for it. That would skew some of the economics being written about here.

    14. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes but you have to convince gas stations to carry fuel cells, which take up space. They don't have extra unused space, this is expensive and wasteful and you use that extra space for something profitable.

    15. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      I run a large motorcycle group. There are motorcycles that only have a 100 mile effective range. We just did a trip from Phoenix to California and back (over 2,000 miles), and were able to plan our trip so we could stop every 60-80 miles to make sure the one person with the 120 mile range would not run out of gas.

      So it's possible to do this for the water, but you can't just jump in the car and go. Unless you put a 100 gallon water tank in the trunk. Or stick to the freeways. It would also be far more difficult to take a cross country trip. Is there some type of warning when the battery only has 100 miles before it needs to be replaced?? And are all batteries going to use the same plates? Are they user replaceable?? It's one thing to create a center at existing service stations for one or two types of plates. But if you need a mechanic to do it, or every manufacturer or model decides to use a different size, it would be a mess.

      I also wonder how this deals with little things like traveling in Maine in the winter with the heater on, or in Phoenix in the summer with the A/C on. Most vehicles today can dump waste heat to heat the car, and use mechanical energy off the engine to drive a compressor for cooling. This car would need to 'burn' electricity to create heat, or use it to power a compressor for cooling. I wonder how that would impact the effective miles between stops or recycling.

      Nice concept ... keep looking.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    16. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones around here have parking lots much larger than they need. They also have quite a bit of plants and green space bordering around that. Then there is the store front, where they have the propane rack and ice, but that takes up less than a quarter of the store front, even at the crappier places without a full convenience store. It seems like they would have plenty of room to store a cage of a decent number of aluminum blocks. And if demand got high enough to exceed that space, I think that would be a point they would be more than willing to adapt.

    17. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say they'd have to compete with water from home, but they already do so with the air supply. But they would also have to compete with water from grocery stores, most of which carry plenty of distilled water. And then deal with competition with neighboring gas stations in some areas. They can get away with high prices for air because still only comes out to an infrequent dollar or so. But if need for water became much more common and the cost is noticeable for typical driving, they might actually start competing over the price. As is, I sometimes wonder how often the air and water services get used since I've noticed them to be broken for weeks at a time at some places.

    18. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the infrastructure to distribute WATER will need to be built? That water is not something that is commonly widely distributed already?

      Distilled water. Not tap-water.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:'Refill with water every 200 mi' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which I've been able to find at just about any grocery store and even the corner store just down the street from where I live. in the long run, any place with tap water that wanted to join in the fun can just purchase one of many self-contained water distillation units already on the market.

  7. Sounds promising by houbou · · Score: 2

    In the end, if the aluminium can be recycled completely to make new batteries, then, this has potential. Depends now on cost, safety, ease of maintenance and most of all performance. You can do 1000 miles.. at what average speed?

    1. Re:Sounds promising by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The process of refining bauxite to get aluminum is extremely energy intensive. Other than having a pure oxide to put in, it almost is pointless to bother recycling the "battery".

      This is one of the last things I want to see in widespread use, unless we have modern nuclear plants, fusion, or some other next gen energy source, just because turning aluminum oxide back to a usable metal uses so much electricity.

    2. Re:Sounds promising by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's no worse than biofuels. And travel generally is a higher value use of energy than converting bauxite to aluminum.

    3. Re:Sounds promising by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Recharging any sort of battery is going to be energy-intensive in (approximate, efficiencies will vary by design) proportion to how energy-dense the depleted battery was. Batteries store, they don't create.

      One would, of course, hope that the aluminum refining is done in areas with some fuel supply other than mountains of delightfully cheap high-sulfur coal; but no battery-based system is going to work except with massive input of electricity(what would be interesting would be to get some numbers on how the energy-efficiency of shipping aluminum oxide to the generator and aluminum back stack up to transmitting electricity over conventional transmission lines... Over short distances, it couldn't possibly be more efficient; but it might turn out that bulk-carriers full of aluminum could move Icelandic geothermal energy to the US east coast much more efficiently than an undersea transmission line could...)

    4. Re:Sounds promising by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Of course building those batteries will need a lot of energy - after all, they're batteries, and should be storing a large amount of energy. That's the energy that was used for driving.

      But the beauty of it is that it could easily be powered by renewables. A common problem of renewables is the unreliable short-term supply - cloud blocking the sun, wind suddenly increasing or decreasing, but over a longer time (weeks, months) the overall supply tends to be pretty predictable. Charging batteries - the traditional type at least - doesn't need constant current. They will charge when there is current, even if it's intermittent.

      As this is aluminium, they will probably use some kind of electrolyses process to get the energy stored. These processes may need some redesign, but I'm quite sure it's possible to come up with some design that can handle varying power supply very well.

    5. Re:Sounds promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The process of refining bauxite to get aluminum is extremely energy intensive.

      That is the entire point of technology like this, and other metal based fuel cells and batteries. Part of the whole reason it takes so much energy to refine metals is because of how much of an energy difference there is between a pure metal and metal oxides or other metal compounds.

      Whether it is worth recycling is a different issue though. The oxide produced would be just fine for the producing metal again part. The relevant question would be how much effort is needed to collect and transport the used metal plates back to be recycled versus just sourcing new ore, and how much of the plates are used up in the process. If the plates still have a significant fraction of pure aluminum in them, then that could easily offset the costs of gathering up used plates, at which point it might be easier to recycle them than to even find a place to just dump them all.

    6. Re:Sounds promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recycling the oxide into aluminum is equivalent to charging the battery. Of course charging the battery is going to be energy intensive if the battery contains enough energy to drive 1000 miles. The actually interesting question is what the efficiency is.

    7. Re:Sounds promising by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      The process of refining bauxite to get aluminum is extremely energy intensive. Other than having a pure oxide to put in, it almost is pointless to bother recycling the "battery".

      This is one of the last things I want to see in widespread use, unless we have modern nuclear plants, fusion, or some other next gen energy source, just because turning aluminum oxide back to a usable metal uses so much electricity.

      Moving cars and people around is energy intensive. Any battery technology is lossy; it's all about storing the electrical energy in chemical form to make it transportable.

      You are correct: this is about coal-powered cars until we have some better way to generate electricity.

    8. Re:Sounds promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The process of refining bauxite to get aluminum is extremely energy intensive. Other than having a pure oxide to put in, it almost is pointless to bother recycling the "battery".

      But industry already does that, and has been doing so for many decades.

      It's how they get aluminum from natural bauxite ore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_process

    9. Re:Sounds promising by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      unless we have modern nuclear plants, fusion, or some other next gen energy source

      Yet, we have those ready for commercialization and now these aluminum batteries. With only the existing nuclear waste from light water reactors and a build out of distributed Integral Fast Reactors, we could run all the vehicles on Earth for the next 90 years - as of today, with existing technology. Branson even wants to fund them.

      What's stopping us from being off of fossil fuels for transportation? The same governments that want to tax the carbon output. No conflict of interest there.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Sounds promising by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "What's stopping us from being off of fossil fuels for transportation?"

      NIMBY, No Growth Lefties, Anti Nuclear, Anti Wind Farm, Anti Hydro Electric, Right Wing Texas Oilmen ...

      The problems aren't technical, not really.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Sounds promising by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      NIMBY, No Growth Lefties, Anti Nuclear, Anti Wind Farm, Anti Hydro Electric, Right Wing Texas Oilmen ...

      And how do all of those prevent fast breeder reactors from being built by private enterprises?

      The problems aren't technical, not really.

      Agreed.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:Sounds promising by ras · · Score: 1

      The process of refining bauxite to get aluminum is extremely energy intensive.

      Yes, but so is driving a car. The real measure of this is the round trip losses. In this case they say their battery has a energy density of 8kWh per kilogram. They don't say what proportion of that 1 kg is consumed aluminium, so lets assume it all it is consumed. It takes 14 kWh to refine bauxite into aluminium. So you get 57% of the energy you put in.

      It will be better than that. Unlike bauxite the used battery won't have mud or other impurities in it, making it cheaper to handle. And of that 1kg, I would of thought that at least 25% will be electrolyte and casing given you have to replace the electrolyte every 200 km. That would put the round trip efficiency in the 70% .. 80% range. That's pretty good - up there with pumped storage which everyone uses to smooth out energy supply if they have it available.

      Aluminium processing plants are generally paired with power stations. The reason is a coal and nuclear power stations can't respond to load changes quickly, so they need to produce more than required and have a place to dump the rest. An aluminium refining plant can take all they can dump, and because what they are taking is variable they get it at a cheap price. The implication of that is aluminium refining plants are very good at smoothing out varying loads (although they can never go to 0). That makes they are reasonably well suited to renewable energy sources.

    13. Re:Sounds promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New aluminum plants can push that down to about 12 kWh per kg, giving about 65-70% efficiency. And there is some room to push efficiency even higher if less pure aluminum can be tolerated.

  8. Mileage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their mileage seems a little off. The total kW/h in this seems to be 200 at the weight of the battery (25kg @ 8 kW/kg). The chevy volt would only go about 750miles on that much juice. (36kWh/100 miles)

    1. Re:Mileage by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Depends on the vehicle. the Tesla roadster carries a 53kWh battery and has a 240ish mile range, with the "best" being a 311 mile trip. That's pretty close to 1000 miles on 200kWh.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  9. Water powered cars by OzPeter · · Score: 0

    I thought that this technology had been suppressed by "Big Oil"?

    If this works as well as it is claimed to, then be prepared for an aggressive change in US policy towards Israel!

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Water powered cars by chill · · Score: 2

      Nope. It is suppressed by "Big Physics". Their "recycle the aluminum" isn't what most people think of recycling. It is reprocessing and it takes huge amounts of electricity.

      The electricity cost is one reason places like Iceland and Upper Volta have courted ALCOA and other big aluminum smelters. Cheap electricity costs.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Water powered cars by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      **woosh***

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Water powered cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aluminum refining on average takes about 50-55 MJ/kg to refine (about 45 MJ/kg with a modern plant). However, about 30 MJ/kg of that is chemical energy in the aluminum, because pure metals represent a chemically high energy state that will release energy in reactions with other stuff. So yes, it takes a huge amount of electricity to refine metals like aluminum, but most of that energy is because a pure metal is a form of energy storage.

    4. Re:Water powered cars by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yes, everybody thought the battery was powered by magical fairies rather than needing electricity.

      If only there was a name for something for which you could take huge amounts of electricity and use it to change the chemical structure of that something. And then you could cause the chemical structure to change back and produce that electricity again (well a large portion of it, 100% efficiency doesn't seem to work often in this universe). Especially if you could control that chemical change so that it happened when you wanted and only as much as you wanted. Even better would be if it could be easily transported and was reasonably stable and could hold a lot of energy per unit of mass.

      How about I propose I name for such a thing: "A really good battery" has a nice ring to it.

    5. Re:Water powered cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "takes huge amounts of electricity" you mean "stores huge amounts of electricity in the aluminum, ready to be easily transported and used on demand".

  10. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why was this modded down? If he had said the same thing about South Africa while Mandela was in prison, it would be pumped up to +5 immediately. Israel is an apartheid government, with a state religion! We should be boycotting them AND Saudi Arabia.. but such is the power of money...

  11. TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a battery, just a fuel cell.

    1. Re:TFA by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, it is not a fuel cell. In this case, it is a CHEMICAL REACTION of water with aluminum. A fuel cell is basically, a catalysts for a fuel and oxidizer. IOW, with a fuel cell, you can continue to run it by inputting fuel/oxidizer. This is not the case.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. lol wut? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    with stops required only every couple of hundred miles to refill the system with water.

    Then the system has a range of a "couple of hundred miles" and not 1000. It has a *charge* for 1000 miles, but the car's range is only as good as your worst stat.

    1. Re:lol wut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, a gasoline powered car with a couple of kids in it only has a range of about 100 miles, because that's how far you can go before you need to fill/drain the kids?

  13. Re:freepalestina by Psyborgue · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They treat people of different citizenship differently. Apartheid! They have the audacity to set up checkpoints at the border of their territory. Apartheid! My god. They built a wall. Apartheid! Never-mind the violence of the intifadas and the fact that the security measures have *worked*, it's "Apartheid!" This is nothing like SA, where there were laws in place discriminating against people on the basis of race. I see nothing wrong with treating people of different nationalities differently. Muslims who hold Israeli citizenship have *exactly* the same rights as Jews... in some cases even more considering they do not have to serve in the Military. Were this not the case, you might have a point, but it's not, and you don't. All you serve to do is insult the people who suffered under actual apartheid.

  14. Re:freepalestina by losfromla · · Score: 1

    actually, such is the power of a group in controlling American media and thus the mindset of the average moron, mod gp up.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  15. Kilomile? by AnotherShep · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who the fuck came up with that dumb word? Someone needs a nice hearty punch in the dick for that.

    1. Re:Kilomile? by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it's like only going half way with a spray on tan.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    2. Re:Kilomile? by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix - see section "Non metric units".

    3. Re:Kilomile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just convert it to metric.

      1 kilomile * (1.6094 km / mile) = 1.6094 kilokilometers

    4. Re:Kilomile? by victor6124 · · Score: 1

      kilometer, kilogram, ... oh wait, you want to call it a mileton or something like that?

    5. Re:Kilomile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, it should be 1.6 megameters.

    6. Re:Kilomile? by AnotherShep · · Score: 2

      This guy here knows how to do it right.

    7. Re:Kilomile? by IMightB · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what I want to know is how many megameters to I get per fuck-ton or ass-load of battery?

    8. Re:Kilomile? by Saethan · · Score: 1

      Kilokilometers? Megameters maybe? 'course spell check yells at me for both.

    9. Re:Kilomile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably someone making $30k/yr.

  16. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    well I DON'T buy 4 of whatever you're buying, so I'm canceling YOU out!

  17. Re:freepalestina by losfromla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    omg! They have the audacity to destroy the economy of a group of people whose land they happen to be illegally occupying. Zomg! They have the audacity to decide they like any piece of land being farmed by a Palestinian and illegally raze the land and put up new condos for their "settlers". Zomg^2! They can roll up to any Palestinian occupied farm, park their mobile home, claim harassment and soon have a garrison of Israeli stormtroopers protecting "their" newly settled land. Not to mention the bombing of innocent women and children.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  18. His Israel boycott is a triple win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "You do realize that whenever one of you assholes boycotts some Israeli company, I make sure to buy 2 of whatever they're selling"

    That won't work. Firstly he wanted to draw attention to this BDS Israel boycott, and he succeeded, and you helped him. Pro Israeli mod's used their mod points to drive it to -1, but you are at +2 and it flags the comments for others to read. I would never have read his comment if you weren't there flagging it.

    Secondly, each time you buy two, you're wasting your money. It's always easier for him to avoid any Israeli products, because they don't have an exclusive on anything he wants. He doesn't go without, he just chooses a competitor's product. You on the other hand, end up paying twice, and have to buy the Israel product, even if there was better or cheaper ones.

    So to him its a triple win, 1. he boycotts Israel, 2. he got you to promote his comment, and 3. you end up being punished for your counter boycott by paying at least double.

    Plus you flag yourself as irrationally pro-Israel in any future discussion, which will prevent you from appearing to be any sensible balanced viewpoint on Israel.

  19. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by losfromla · · Score: 1

    that's ok, because I then boycott them twice as much, lets see who runs out of money first.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  20. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    The problem is that Israel does not allow the Palestinians to make anything at all. They have a controlled border, they can't even import concrete to repair the buildings that Israel has blown up.

  21. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 1
    --
    I'm not a coward by any name.
  22. This will fail by maggern · · Score: 2

    Consumers don't want this. They want something to recharge at home during the night without having to visit "stations" in order to refill water or aluminium. Also, we already have a distribution system for electricity and gas, there will be no costly third aluminiumbattery-system.

    1. Re:This will fail by cusco · · Score: 1

      Good luck actually predicting what consumers "want". Pet rocks, curling irons, and soy milk lattes would never have been on the list of things that I would have predicted that consumers could be convinced that they want/need.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:This will fail by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not Paris Hilton....

  23. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "different citizenship"... You're full of it. They are the indigenous people of the area and were violently displaced by radical zionists. Deported from their own land! So basically, fuck you!

  24. We don't measure miles in kilos by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Funny

    640 miles should be enough for anyone.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  25. bogus until they are actual use by peter303 · · Score: 2

    There has been a claim of "revolutionary battery technology" from some US energy lab every month- carbon nanotubes, lithium air, etc. But few have ramped up to daily production road use. And few have gone bankrupt with $100s millions US DOE grants along the way.

    I really, truly hope one of these claims becomes reality one day. I would like a 1000-mile electric car in my garage that costs the same as a petro car.

    1. Re:bogus until they are actual use by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      very normal for new tech, almost all ideas don't pan out. to extend that something relevant to all the startup-wannabes here on slashdot, making a new software or service is easy, marketing it is extremely hard. so most fail.

    2. Re:bogus until they are actual use by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the revolutionary thing this time is that there's nothing revolutionary about this process, except a company trying to sell it.

      add the taxes and it's even at the price of gas. That's the real problem with most alternatives for gasoline that companies are hawking right now - they only make almost sense because taxing is the way it is - gasoline is cheap o cheap and the countries selling it could sell it even cheaper and still make a profit.. but it sells at the price it sells at so that's where the price is.

      so economically it's silly not to use it still.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:bogus until they are actual use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.phinergy.com/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery

  26. Put it on a trailer by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Seriously, this looks like a great way to range extend electric cars by putting it on a small tow-able trailer, or something that plugs into the rear similar to the trailer hitch carriers.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Put it on a trailer by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this looks like a great way to range extend electric cars by putting it on a small tow-able trailer, or something that plugs into the rear similar to the trailer hitch carriers.

      What happens in a 40 mph differential rear end collision? You might be able to design it to crumble and absorb energy better. But there are still solid plates o aluminium.

    2. Re:Put it on a trailer by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · · Score: 1

      Umm... 25kg of Aluminium, i.e. something you can easily lift with one arm - I think that might fit in the trunk.

    3. Re:Put it on a trailer by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's just 55 pounds + auxiliaries + water. luggage for 3 people weighs more..

      but it's still just an alu "battery". not news. economics of it still doesn't pan out vs. refining the aluminium into items and selling those items.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Put it on a trailer by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Add the water and all of the rest to it. In addition, you now have to make a unique item per vehicle. OTOH, electric cars have the ability to have plugs outside. Putting one in a trailer hitch area makes life easy.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. SI vs. US customary? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

    I love the units used in the summary title. Kilomile? A better statement would be Megameter.

    1. Re:SI vs. US customary? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I love the units used in the summary title. Kilomile? A better statement would be Megameter.

      Kilomile = 1000 miles.
      megametre = 1000 km.

      Last I checked, a kilometre is much shorter than a mile...

    2. Re:SI vs. US customary? by emho24 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah but megametre sounds much cooler. Like Megadeth, Megatron, Megaboz ...

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    3. Re:SI vs. US customary? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      my car has $186k miles on it. you mean I would be replacing the plates 200 times over the course of the cars life? that sounds like a lot of work...

    4. Re:SI vs. US customary? by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I love the units used in the summary title. Kilomile? A better statement would be Megameter.

      Kilomile = 1000 miles.
      megametre = 1000 km.

      Last I checked, a kilometre is much shorter than a mile...

      And a kiloleague would be even longer ... but the point I assume the GP was making is that it seems stupid to use an SI prefix with an antiquated unit of measurement.

    5. Re:SI vs. US customary? by suutar · · Score: 1

      assuming it gets widespread, it'll probably be something like: pop hood, pull out 25 pound aluminum block A, pull out 25 pound aluminum block B, put in two new 25 pound blocks, close hood. Faster than pumping gas, once you've gotten the guy manning the station to unlock the block rack. Kind of like the Blue Rhino propane swap stations.

    6. Re:SI vs. US customary? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Until I saw your post, and never having heard the term "kilomile" before (an Americanism?) I had mis-read the as "Israeli firm makes kilometer claims ....... ". I thought they must be a hell of a way behind the curve.

    7. Re:SI vs. US customary? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      my car has $186k miles on it. you mean I would be replacing the plates 200 times over the course of the cars life? that sounds like a lot of work...

      Stil running in then. Mine has 265,000 miles. Anyway, what's with the dollars?

    8. Re:SI vs. US customary? by operagost · · Score: 1

      You know how some people measure distances in time? He measures it in the cost of the gas.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:SI vs. US customary? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      What is a dollar-mile?

    10. Re:SI vs. US customary? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      kilomile isn't a word. dont chalk it up to americanism. here we would say something like "1000-mile". I know, we're crazy, right???!?!

    11. Re:SI vs. US customary? by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      my car has $186k miles on it. you mean I would be replacing the plates 200 times over the course of the cars life? that sounds like a lot of work...

      Done right, no more work than filling the tank 200 times.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    12. Re:SI vs. US customary? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      My buddy ran the Boston Kilomarathon. He's dead.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  28. I boycott companies that work with Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, better than that, any company that works with Israel on any product I automatically avoid too.

    Sometimes it's a bit harder, but just reading Engadget, the Israeli company is always there trying to promote themselves, so it's relatively easy to avoid them. So when choosing a console for example, the XBox Kinect (licensed from an Israel company) meant I opted for the PS3 instead.

    I know it doesn't have a direct measurable effect, but it makes me feel like I'm doing something positive. Taking a little time each day to choose one product over another, and understanding that each time I do it, a few dollars less make there way into Israel.

    Sometimes I have to do partial rejects. I turned off Google autocomplete search, it was developed in Google Israel (and besides it use to annoy me that the autocomplete was sent to Google, if I typed it in before switching to DuckDuckGo to do the actual search).

  29. Re:freepalestina by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 3, Informative

    Clue time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

      The South Africans claimed that blacks, coloured, Indians, etc., were not their citizens. They were in fact citizens of powerless, discontinuous territories that were basically controlled by South Africa. Since there was no work in these bantustans, the majority of their population commuted through South African checkpoints each day. They also claimed increasing amounts of territory for their own minority, ethnically defined population.

    Also, Israeli's dominant, "centre right" party Likud claims that God wants Jewish Israelis to have all the territory for themselves (all of what was previously British Palestine). South African Boer culture included similar thoughts.

    The parallels are not unreasonable.

    --
    The map is not the territory.
  30. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't buy 10 soda streams, enjoy your overpriced fizzy saccharine water.

  31. several points by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    1) Can we at least arrest, if not shoot the idiot that thought the word "kilomile" was a good word?

    2)Price wise, the cost to replace 55 pounds of aluminum is about equal to gas. Maybe a little lower if you get paid back some for the used aluminum. Not much, but at least a small gain economically. Pollution wise it is worth it.

    3) Range of a gas car is normally around 300 to 400 miles. (http://solarchargeddriving.com/editors-blog/on-evs-a-phevs/706-whats-your-gasoline-cars-range.html) Range of a car using this technology should easily be the same (just because some idiot thought they need to refill the battery with water every 100 miles doesn't mean a good engineer can't install a large spare water tank to refill it on the go.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:several points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Can we at least arrest, if not shoot the idiot that thought the word "kilomile" was a good word?

      *grumble* First you high-falutin' book-learnin' types keep tryin' to tell us real-life-experience folk how much better yer keelohs and yer millehs and yer scentys are than that what me and mah pappy and his pappy before him use t' grow all that thar food y'all keeps on eatin' and eatin' without so much as a "thank you sir". So we finally decides t' be all nice and hospitable t' all y'all city-folk and reach what we thinks is a reasonable comp-ro-mise. An' all what YOU can do is complain, complain, complain. Y'ain't never happy with nothin', are ya?

  32. Re:freepalestina by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

    Israelis do not hold that all Muslims or Arabs are not citizens. That is an important distinction which you miss, unintentionally or otherwise. There were no suicide bombers in SA either.

  33. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

    If Hamas, for example, was allowed concrete, they would build bunkers and fortified tunnels for smuggling rockets and it would never get to the people who need it. There are good reasons certain things are restricted.

  34. Re:freepalestina by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

    There was a war. About 20 percent of the "palestinians" chose to stay and fight with the Jews. They, and their children, are still living in Israel. Those who voluntarily left were not allowed to return. Then there were two more wars, instigated by the Muslims, in which Israel gained land. I don't think land Israelis paid for their lives for in a defensive war should be returned.

  35. Re:Bad headline. Not rechargeable - it's a fuel ce by DrXym · · Score: 2
    You have to "throw away" the gasoline you use to drive 1000 miles too by burning it. Of course you wouldn't be "throwing away" the battery per se - you'd exchange it for a full one like you might with a spent propane tank. Most probably you'd pay a deposit on the first battery and a refill charge thereafter.

    If the battery were slung under the vehicle (as an another Israeli firm called Better Place proposes), then it could even be swapped out just by driving the car on to a ramp where a robotic arm extracts and replaces it in minutes. Also the battery is for exceptional situations so that 1000 miles might deplete very slowly since drivers would rely on rechargeable cells for the most part. So you might only have to do this once a month or once every half a year depending on your driving patterns.

    Of course could be lots of reasons that this is a terrible idea. What's the energy cost of producing a battery and recycling it? What's the cost of building out an infrastructure? How many batteries would a car need to haul around to justify the additional range it supplied? Does the battery degrade when it's not in use or when it's used just once? Would other metal-air batteries be safe or cheaper to use? And so on.

  36. Re:Bad headline. Not rechargeable - it's a fuel ce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when did the definition for battery require the ability to recharge? Does that mean all these batteries I have are actually lies?!

  37. Re:freepalestina by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Muslims who hold Israeli citizenship have *exactly* the same rights as Jews...

    And they frequently have more rights than they would if they were living in a predominantly-Muslim country. I've met a journalist who is Arab and an Israeli citizen, and he much prefers being able to criticize the decisions made by the Israeli government over living in any of the surrounding countries where doing so would get him executed.

  38. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    No. There are not good reasons to restrict certain things, like concrete or food or medicine. Israel is committing ethnic cleansing and running a ghetto. They are in the wrong, period.

  39. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'voluntarily left'... 'defensive war' that's funny, or would be if not for the tragedy. Damn, man! It 's coming out your ears!

  40. Not energy effcient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It takes a lot of energy to refine aluminum. The battery is not rechargeable and requires recycling every 1000 miles. This does not sound workable in the long term. A car using this battery will also require another battery like Lithium Ion for situations where one needs a burst of energy or when one wants to take advantage of regenerative braking. This solution seems half-baked to me.

    1. Re:Not energy effcient by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Well, if we use just that battery, I'd agree, but I think any rationally designed electric car will use a combination of heavy duty batteries or fuel cells, supplemented by rechargeable lithium ion batteries, or more likely, high-capacity supercapacitors to handle sudden surges in load and allow for regenerative braking.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  41. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Israel is an apartheid government

    Lets review the facts:

    Arab citizens of Israel can vote.
    Arab citizens of Israel can run for office and get elected.
    Arab citizens of Israel serve on the supreme court.
    Arab citizens of Israel can sue the government and win.
    Arab citizens of Israel can worship as they please.

    Sure sounds like apartheid to me!

  42. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the black white man! Got one of those living in the white house, yet institutional racism is alive and well in the US as well. The government of Israel has no right to exist. The indigenous people are the only rightful owners of the land. And the walls of Jericho once again need to be demolished by whatever force necessary.

  43. state religion? by schneidafunk · · Score: 2

    Israel does not force Judaism on its citizens. You may be thinking of Hamas in Gaza, which has been enforcing Islam and intimidating people to convert to Islam. They have religious police enforcing dress codes and most recently segregated all schools by gender, including private schools.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:state religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me when we start handing out billions of dollars for (atomic)weaponry to the Palestinians.

    2. Re:state religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me when the pizza is ready. See what I did there? I can make a random comment that has nothing to do with the parent post too!

  44. Re:freepalestina by theVarangian · · Score: 2

    There was a war. About 20 percent of the "palestinians" chose to stay and fight with the Jews. They, and their children, are still living in Israel. Those who voluntarily left were not allowed to return.

    .... and then the Government of Israel handed out the land of those who were not allowed to return to Jewish settlers.

    That sounds like pretty neat description of ethnic cleansing to me.

  45. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the all powerful Jews run America and brainwash everyone. They are trying to take over the world! Round them up before it's too late.

  46. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the United States has no right to exist?

  47. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. There are not good reasons to restrict certain things, like concrete or food or medicine.

    Israel does not restrict food or medicine.

    Shipments are inspected since they are often used to smuggle guns & explosives, but aside from that, no.

  48. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muslims who hold Israeli citizenship have *exactly* the same rights as Jews...

    And they frequently have more rights than they would if they were living in a predominantly-Muslim country. I've met a journalist who is Arab and an Israeli citizen, and he much prefers being able to criticize the decisions made by the Israeli government over living in any of the surrounding countries where doing so would get him executed.

    So in both Israel and 'predominantly-Muslim' countries he gets walked all over by the ruling elite. The difference being that in Israel he get's to complain about it and watch as his complaints are ignored while in a 'predominantly-Muslim' he'd get a smack-down from the security forces (Which he'll also get in Israel if somebody in the intelligence services suspects he has might have ties to Hamas). I can't really decide which sounds more fun... being a second class citizen with an option on going to jail or a guaranteed trip to jail if you open your mouth.

  49. Re:freepalestina by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    They were convinced to leave by the surrounding countries, the rulers of which had hoped that Israel won't last for long and all the property would be up for grabs Real Soon Now(tm) and that they just needed a clean line of fire at the Israelis. It didn't materialize, and now they're screwed.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  50. How does this compare to the zinc cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read years ago about a proposed "zinc economy" for batteries. You'd pump in little zinc pellets, the reactor would produce zinc oxide and electricity. You'd pump the zinc oxide back out. The station would use another electric reactor to refine it back into pure zinc.

    Obviously it's messy. I assume this process is too. A nice bonus with the zinc system is that you can put the exhaust on your nose at the beach. The possible toxicity of excessive zinc and aluminum being spilled can't be ignored. It's not as bad as powering your car with benzine; but there are still considerations. Aluminum plaques are noted in Alzheimer's patients. AFAIK there is no definitive study linking environmental exposure to Al and dementia; but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

  51. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like you haven't really thought about it, in Israel: there is no dress code, allowed to hang out with unmarried girls / boys, alcohol, music, dancing, kissing in public, gay rights, women's rights, etc.

  52. Aluminum fuel by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Yes, but unlike a beer can in this case the aluminum is probably being converted back to bauxite (or something similar) within the battery as it delivers power, so recycling it will require reinvesting all that energy again. Actually rather ingenious if the efficiencies work out well - aluminum is both energy dense and stable, and the recharging/refining process has already benefited from many decades of industrial scale optimization.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  53. Re:freepalestina by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 2

    I think your first point is fair; there are Muslim/Arab Israeli citizens, and they have representation in their parliament as well. They are very small in number, though, so the net result is the same as South Africa: a single ethnic group that dominates the country.

    Your second point I don't agree with. The SA authorities considered the African National Congress to be a terrorist group. There was violence committed by black South Africans and it was called terrorism. Mandela himself was jailed for allegations of terrorism, and not officially for his political ideas. In both cases the violence is only one-sided if you fail to consider the actions of the police and army, who I consider to be perpetrating violence on behalf of the majority and powers that be.

    I would like to see one of two things happen in Israel:

    1) The Palestinians get a real, viable state. There's different options here, like a demilitarized state, and different possible partitions but it should be a real state and not a bantustan. This option is favoured by some former Israeli intelligence officers as it basically maintains the status quo, but reduces the instability of the conflict.

    2) The whole territory becomes part of Israel, and everyone who lives there is an Israeli citizen. Everyone is allowed to vote and has equal protection under the law. Jews would not be a strong majority under these conditions, as the current split in the former British Palestine is about 50/50 Jew/Arab, with more growth on the Arab side.

    Right now Israel seem to be combining parts of 1) and 2) to their advantage, which is hardly fair and not sustainable.

    --
    The map is not the territory.
  54. Re:freepalestina by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

    Gays can serve in the military. Even gay marriage is recognized, which is more than can be said for most of Europe or the US.

  55. Re:freepalestina by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    There were no suicide bombers in SA either.

    What makes suicide bombers so much worse than non-suicide bombers?

  56. Bullsht by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you boycott China products because of their child labor & pollution? Do you boycott Palestinian products because Hamas won't let girls be in the same classroom as men?

  57. Re:freepalestina by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Ethnic cleansing? There are somewhere around a billion Arabs in the ME. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

  58. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is buying the moronic divestment movement, but keep trying- it's better than strapping on explosives and murdering women and children. Is this some kind of make-work for otherwise wanna-be terrorists?

  59. intelligent range extension by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Actually seems pretty similar to gas to to me, except that you're replacing the tank as well as the fuel.

    The one improvement I could see is using something like ten 5-plate batteries rather than one 50-plate battery and, insofar as possible, draining them sequentially. That way you could replace just one or two spent batteries to "top off the tank" after using a couple hundred miles of range extension. By coordinating with the rechargable battery that wouldn't seem to be too difficult even if you would normally need most of the batteries in parallel to provide peak power - just have an "optimized range extension" switch on the dash that would drain your weakest extended battery(s) to manitain cruising speed and save the rechargable for when a little extra "oomph" is necessary.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  60. The Battery Mutilator by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Brawndo! It's got what batteries crave! It's got electrolytes!

  61. Re:freepalestina by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

    The primary issue is that the Arabs don't want a State! They didn't want it in 1948 and they've rejected every single workable proposal since then. Why do people ignore the fact that had Israel lost the '67 war, for example, that Israel would have been split between Egypt, Jordan and Syria? The Arab countries have no more interest in a Palestinian State than anyone else.

    And Palestine is the name given to Israel by the Romans. If anything, a "Palestinian" State would be entirely Jewish!

  62. trickle charging by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Heck Yeah! It's just too bad that trickle-charging is almost useless for range extension - if your car consumes 10kW to maintain cruising speed then even if you can provide a 1kW "trickle" you'll only extend your range by about 10%. The real benefit is just that you don't need a charging station to recharge when parked.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  63. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europeans should go back to Africa.

  64. Re:Bad headline. Not rechargeable - it's a fuel ce by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    He does not claim that is the definition. In fact he refers to it as a battery himself, as in "you have to throw the aluminum battery away once you've used it". He is just complaining that it is not a rechargeable battery.

  65. This is hardly new in and of its self by katarn · · Score: 1

    For decades Iceland has been contemplating ways to export their cheap geothermal electricity, and aluminum batteries are one such idea. I'll leave it to someone not on a mobile phone to do a detailed search, but here is one link: http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=765&first=3858&end=3857 The gist of Slashdot's linked to adver.... uh, article, is they think they have improved the process. Of course it appears they do it in their own custom built demonstration vehicle. There are ways to make custom built gas cars get almost that range on a tank of gas, but they aren't anything most of us would want to drive, and wouldn't pass US safety standards. So although this is probably good news, it also probably isn't as exciting or new as the marketing hype.

  66. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see this as pretty unproblematic.

    It's widely recognized from European humanitarian law that people form an attachment to a country after just a few years of living there, which is so strong that it's potentially a gross violation of removing them.

    That means the descendants of the Palestinians who moved out by now have a pretty intractable attachment to their new countries.

    If you are going to argue that people can have an undeniable attachment to a country because their parents were born there, then that puts deportation of illegal immigrants who have been out of their country of birth for 20-30-40 years into a whole new light.

  67. Re: freepalestina by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

    They do, however, apply a separate legal framework to Palestinians than they do to Israeli Jews. Which is also the literal definition of apartheid....

  68. Non-metric units can also be counted in base 10. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Who the [...] came up with that dumb word [kilomile]?

    Probably a techie, used to using prefixes to indicate power of ten scaling factors when talking about large or small counts or measurements.

    But it's a perfectly valid construction. Quantities measured in non-metric units can also be expressed in base 10.

    Assuming you CAN count in base 10, of course. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  69. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This year, Israel's entrant into the Miss Universe contest is a black African. This from a country that brought you Bar Rafaeli (and even Aliza Gur, one of the original Bond girls). Images here.

    Israel must be differentiating on something other than race. As for being a religious country, can you think of one Muslim dominated country that pumps out bikini- and monokini-clad models like Israel does? These women sure make me a believer, is that the religion you're talking about? Claims of apartheid and religious domination are absurd. If you cling to them you must not have a lot else to do. Maybe Israel is just trying to solve some real problems. Migrants and refugees from neighboring continents clamor to get in. Those fleeing from Muslin-on-Muslim violence come in, too, when they tire of the sport that makes Israeli violence seem as insignificant as its land area is relative to the Arab world.

    Most importantly, I'm bored. I don't want to have to put up with this kind of name calling any more. Israeli Arabs choose to stay and be part of Israeli society. I'll listen to them with interest, but I can't find the energy to keep following along with this knee-jerk Israel-bashing trope.

  70. Re:freepalestina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you've generally got more time to spot and stop a non-suicide bomber, because he has to get in, set up his bomb, and get out. This usually involves actions which can draw attention. A suicide bomber, on the other hand, simply has to arrive. Additionally, if the a suicide bomber is spotted the bomber still has the opportunity to set off the bomb early for a lesser effect.

  71. Re:Non-metric units can also be counted in base 10 by AnotherShep · · Score: 1

    Oh I agree it's technically valid, but how can you say it without feeling shame? I should change my second sentence there, too. They need a kilopunch in the microdick. Topical!

  72. Re:Jews ARE the indigenous people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The "Jews" that stole the land and live there now are from Europe. They have no relation to the indigenous people. And either way. By your 'reasoning' the North American Indians have the right to take back their land also. I say we should hand them a few nukes and tell them to go for it.

  73. Re:Slashdot should join with BDS movement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's with the blockade stopping all means of acquiring funds(industrial parts, concrete, etc essentials) for buying food and medicine then?

    it's a stalemate. they're running largest ghetto there is.. sadly there is no way around that. they may have their reasons for running it but they don't have an exit plan - Seemingly the plan is that the palestenians just disappear into some hole in a ground eventually.

  74. Re:freepalestina by otuz · · Score: 1

    So what's your opinion on stealth bombers then?