Will Future Tesla Cars Use Metal-Air Batteries?

thecarchik writes "Most advocates and industry analysts expect lithium-ion batteries to dominate electric-car energy storage for the rest of this decade. But is Tesla Motors planning to add a new type of battery to increase the range of its electric cars? Tesla has filed for eight separate patents on uses of metal-air battery technology (for example, #20120041625). The metals covered for use in the metal-air battery are aluminum, iron, lithium, magnesium, vanadium, and zinc. Metal-air batteries, which slowly consume their anodes to give off energy, hit the news last month when Israeli startup Phinergy demonstrated its prototype battery and let reporters drive a test vehicle fitted with the energy-storage device. Mounted in a subcompact demonstration car, Phinergy's aluminum-air battery provides 1,000 miles of range, it said, and requires refills of distilled water (which acts as electrolyte in the cells) about every 200 miles."

Comments

My car has a range of 6000 miles

[ShanghaiBill]

1,000 miles of range, it said, and requires refills of distilled water about every 200 miles.

My car has a range of 6000 miles. That is how often I have to stop to change the motor oil. Of course, I also have to stop every 300 miles to get some gas.

Re:My car has a range of 6000 miles

[mlts]

There is a misnomer: These are not batteries but fuel cells. The way the aluminum is "recharged" is by hauling the alumina (aluminum oxide) back to a smelting place and spending 15,000 watts per kilo of aluminum made in electricity.

My concern about this type of battery is the fact that it requires so much energy to "recycle". Already, 1/20 of all US electric output goes to smelt aluminum, and going with aluminum/air fuel cells would add to something that is a ferocious energy user. (Not to knock the aluminum business -- it is a very useful and vital metal, but it is highly dependent on electricity.)

Re:My car has a range of 6000 miles

[GigsVT]

Very pure water is very aggressive. For example spray nozzles that spray RO or distilled water get eaten up very quickly.

Industrially, you have to often add controlled salts back into distilled water to keep it from destroying your machines by dissolving them.

So it's entirely plausible that distilled water had a negative effect on her teeth.

Re:My car has a range of 6000 miles

[crunchygranola]

The so-called aluminum-air battery actually consumes water also as part of its fuel. The consumption of water is an equal mass with the aluminum consumed, and that 1000 mile batter pack weighs 25 kg, so it should consume 25 kg of water, or about 7 gallons per 1000 miles. So the water consumption cost will be around 0.6 cents per mile.

Re:My car has a range of 6000 miles

[Ol Olsoc]

Factoring that in along with anode replacement makes those batteries sound a *LOT* less pleasant compared to gasoline.

Funny how everyone thinks gasoline is the perfect fuel. As for Gasoline's pleasantness:

1 out of every 5 fires is an vehicle fire

33 car fires are reported across the US every hour

one person per day died in a car fire between 2002 and 2005

258,000 vehicl fires in 2007 with 395 deaths and 1675 injuries.

Vehicle fires cost Americans 1.4 billion dollars in 2007

Citation: http://www.chandlerlawgroup.com/library/national-vehicle-fire-statistics.cfm

People are just used to cars, and have familiarity bred contempt for Gasoline, a poisonous, Carcinogenic liquid that sits near the line of deflagration and explosiveness. It has awesome energy density and portability, but that doesn't chenge the danger in it that most of us choose to ignore.

I doubt the issue you bring up is all that big a problem anyhow. Likely the battery replacement will be just that - pull the battery after a thousand miles. All done by the same service station that changes your oil. Then the AlOx gets recycled. The distilled water will indeed have some cost. Probably will come down when produced in bulk amounts needed

The interesting thing about this technology is that it doesn't require petrochemicals. Doesn't require much exotic materials either. So you can expect a Koch fueled disinformation campaign very soon. the rest of the world will be driving around in these while Americans will deny that the concept works.

Re:My car has a range of 6000 miles

[iroll]

Ever heard of having just enough rope to hang yourself? That's what happens with a lot of scientific arguments, just like you implied with your stem cell analogy.

Fluoride in ground water comes from fluoride crystal deposits--it's F+ ion. Fluoridated water has F+ ion as well, IIRC... I may be wrong there. The way it gets there, however, is by adding either a fluoride salt (NaF)...

Yes. Basically. Fluoride is an anion (F-), and your "fluoride crystals" are fluoride salts. Fluoride (the ion) must have a counter ion with it; very simple forms would be NaF (sodium fluoride) or HF (hydrofluoric acid).

or complex fluorochemicals, some of which are actually acids.

Define "complex," and why do we care if they are acids? The water won't be acidic when it reaches your tap.

This is toxic industrial waste with hazmat handling restrictions.

This statement adds nothing to your argument. There are plenty of beneficial compounds that are toxic at high concentrations and regulated as hazards. Furthermore, there are plenty of beneficial compounds that are byproducts of other processes. You're thinking of Hexafluorosilicic acid, and you're talking about it like it's dihydrogen monoxide--you know, the dangerous toxic waste that kills millions yearly and was used by Hitler and Stalin.

Yeah, you want fluoride in your water. You want it in trace amounts, though; and you want F+ ion, not all the other garbage that gets dumped in your water to get F+ ion into it artificially.

The amount added to drinking water is a trace amount, and may be less than many natural waters have. If the concentrations are the same, what's the problem?

Furthermore, in the case of the two examples you gave, the "other garbage" (also in trace amounts) is sodium or silica, both of which you unquestionably consume in much greater quantities daily.

Yes, that's right, silica. According to wikipedia, in water at neutral pH, Hexafluorosilicic acid decomposes into silica, and the F- ions that kids crave:

SiF6^2- + 2 H2O => 6 F- + SiO2 + 4 H+

Silica, by the way, is the active ingredient in sand.

If they artificially produced F+ ion by stripping it out of toxic waste, you'd get something vastly different

No, no you wouldn't, because you can't just strip out the fluoride. That's not how chemistry works. You could spend money to convert it into another fluoride compound (like NaF), but the safety of the consumer would be exactly the same either way, as long as it was pure. In fact, it's probably better that they don't use NaF, because we get plenty of Na on our french fries.

--and the argument would be entirely stupid.

No comment.

Instead, the argument is between people shouting "FLUORIDE" while the reality is between Fluoride and Toxic Fluoride Compounds.

It's really a shame that you have no idea what you're talking about, because there is actually a huge issue at stake that is just over the horizon from your argument, and that is the growing use of fluorinated carbon compounds. These are persistent, carcinogenic, endocrine disrupting, bioaccumulating, and every other dangerous word you can think of.

If you want to talk about that, then I'm sure we'd agree that we don't want halocarbons of any kind used any more than absolutely necessary (are you listening to me, State of California?), but unfortunately you've been suckered by a bunch of pseudoscientific babble.

Re:If you build it.....

[ackthpt]

They will buy it, but seeing is believing

Do you think air batteries could become vapor ware?