Slashdot Mirror
How Argonne National Lab Will Make Electric Cars Cheaper
ashshy writes Argonne National Lab is leading the charge on next-generation battery research. In an interview with The Motley Fool, Argonne spokesman Jeff Chamberlain explains how new lithium ion chemistries will drive down the cost of electric cars over the next few years. "The advent of lithium ion has truly enabled transportation uses," Chamberlain said. "Because if you remember your freshman chemistry, you think of the periodic table -- lithium is in the upper left-hand corner of the periodic table. Only hydrogen and helium are lighter on an atomic basis."
That's right, it's called nullithium and its nucleus contains zero protons.
...which is why we put them in self-driving cars that communicate with each other to avoid accidents.
It's zero protons held together with magnets.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What do you mean? An African or European proton?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So does Sodium. But do you notice how table salt doesn't burn in water?
There's no lithium metal in lithium /ion/ cells. The whole lithium catching on fire thing is to do with them having a rather volatile solvent as part of the electrolyte (something similar to ether).
Sent from my PDP-11
Elemental lithium does, yes.
Lithium compounds in batteries, not so much.
I dunno what weird engineered atoms might be in our future, but the element to which any atom belongs is determined by its proton count -- and since we're talking about discrete units they can only exist as whole numbers.
Stop ruining his outburst with science.
Some new game changing battery/supercapacitor breakthrough might be just around the corner. If so, all that investment in the battery megafactory could get wiped out. Ditto with investing in lithium mining.
So the megafactory might be still happily minting money 25 years from now, or it might be nearly worthless 5 years from now. Presumably this means we'll be paying a risk premium on lithium and lithium batteries. It seems to me that it would be smart for Tesla to be investing in the very technologies that might disrupt their factory, as an insurance policy. That way, if the fortune you've invested in the factory evaporates, hopefully you'll have a new replacement fortune due to having a stake in the new technology. However, this strategy requires that you have the funds for this speculative investment, and has you encouraging the very research which will ruin your factory investment. (Also, maybe you won't have invested in the right places and won't have a stake in the new technology.) In the case of Tesla, they are major consumers as well as (soon to be) major manufacturers of batteries, so there is an additional up-side to investing in the hypothetical tech breakthrough.
Is lithium mining expanding fast enough to feed this factory when it comes online?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
What's it like, flunking high school physics?
moox. for a new generation.
And that is why we should return to the safe, natural goodness of gasoline.
I wondered the same thing, so I read the article (sometimes it must be done).
He was making the point that lithium is not heavy. Other than that, it's hard to know what else he was trying to say, because the article doesn't give much context.
Of course, it's also possible that since he's just a spokesman, he doesn't have much else to say.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He was making the point that lithium is not heavy. Other than that, it's hard to know what else he was trying to say, because the article doesn't give much context.
I know it's not XKCD, but there's relevant SMBC and PHD comics.
Roughly speaking, outside of very dedicated science reporting channels by the time you go from the scientist's representative trying to dumb it down, to the reporter trying to dumb it down, to the editor doing it yet again, accuracy sucks.
Maybe they're trying for a hydrogen battery?
I don't read AC A human right
I think electric cars are the future. Some will debate me on that, but I'm not interested in that debate.
Where are we likely to be in 15 yrs? 2x current capacity? 4x current capacity? 10x current capacity? Where are the growing pains?
How much better/cheaper can lithium ion batteries get? What will they be replaced with? What's the end game?
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Maybe they're trying for a hydrogen battery?
lol because hydrogen is lighter than lithium?
If you read the article, it does at least make clear what they are trying for. Their first priority is to make batteries cheaper (the range is already good enough to sell a lot, they feel, if the price goes down). Their second priority is to increase range, and they have some ideas that could increase range 400%, but they are not ready for production yet (they have problems like short battery life or whatever). Those are the things I could gather from the article.
As far as actual chemistry, there is nothing there.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think you mean "fucking magnets" - how do they work?
They'll make electric cars dramatically cheaper just like they brought us fusion reactors!
To be fair he wanted to shoot someone in the face while bird hunting, but apparently Martha's Vineyard doesn't have the same easy attitude about misuse of firearms that Wyoming does.
Oh, c'mon, everyone knows that the ultimate power source will be an element with pi protons, e neutrons & 3i electrons
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Hmm, that was typed as sq rt 2 x i electrons but Slashdot made it a 3.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
... when I can buy an all-electric car that is just as sexy and just as performant as the Tesla Model S for under about $45k in today's dollars.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I missed that it was lithium *ion* cells.
-- hendrik
I did read the article, though not before my comment. In it was really nothing new. We've known for ages that with the development of the lithium ion battery that the only thing stopping EVs from being the obvious choice 90% of the time was the cost of the energy storage. From my research, if the giga-factory does succeed at cutting the cost of LiIon in half it's going to be a real game changer, and not just for the EV world.
Why? Last time I checked LiIon was down to below double that of Lead-Acid. That means that if you cut the price in half again lithium Ion will actually be cheaper than Lead-Acid.
That $100 car battery? A lithium-ion equivalent that's 1/10th the weight for the same capacity and probably even more cold cranking amps might be $80.
We've already seen the start of a revolution with nearly all cordless tools becoming LiIon devices rather than NiCd and NiMH.
I don't read AC A human right
I did read the article, though not before my comment. In it was really nothing new.
Oh sorry about that, I should have pointed that out; I forgot to mention that the article isn't actually worth reading lol
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"lithium is in the upper left-hand corner of the periodic table. Only hydrogen and helium are lighter on an atomic basis."
I'm wondering if this is a non sequitur for electric batteries.
Not a non sequitur at all.
An important factor for batteries is energy density: How much energy is stored per unit mass. This is particularly important for electric cars: The higher the energy density, the less mass you havce to haul around for a given amount of "fuel", which means the less "fuel" is spent hauling your "fuel" around, so it's a more-than-linear improvement.
Lithium is both extremely light and a very reactive nonmetal. So you're talking about a lot of energy per unit mass for the lithium-based electrode's contribution to the reaction.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
RTFA
It mentions they are trying to replace the lithium ion anode with "pure lithium" - i.e. lithium metal.
Lithium is a metal.
Well, you could always try making a battery with a lithium anode instead, that's coated with carbon nanospheres to stop it from reacting to stuff, and forming dendrites over time with charging and recharging. Funny thing is, Stanford's doing just that, and I believe I may have even gotten this link from slashdot a couple weeks ago: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...
Why post this anonymous? Now it won't be +5Funny.
Lithium is a metal.
Oops. Right. Sorry.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is a non-sequiteur. The energy density of a li-ion battery doesn't even approach the theoretical maximum storage for the element lithium shifting between ionization states. That's hardly the only way this article is terrible, mind you. My head hurt every time they said the word "efficiency", it's like they were using it to mean everything possible except for actual efficiency. And if I read it right - who knows, the article is such a total mess - the researcher isn't talking about reducing battery cost, but increasing longevity. But maybe that was mangled too.
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
So you do not think there could ever be anything discovered that has the same amount of protons but completely different properties due to some yet unknown reason? Is it that everything in this area of science has already been discovered, the concenssus is in and we should ignore it all except for how we use what we already know?
I think this was the case once before when some idiot tried to claim there was some special theory of reletivity or something nuty like that. Its a good thing nobody took him seriously.
Nuh uh! There are also compressed air cars - they only explosively decompress upon tank failure! ;)
At least with batteries, flammability or explosiveness aren't a fundamental requirement of how you're trying to propel the vehicle, just an unfortunate side effect of some variants of the technology (even not all types of li-ions are flammable). There's lots of people who assume that flammability is a consequence of electrical energy density, but that's just not the case. The actual charge/discharge lithium batteries via intercalating into the anode or cathode is more an atomic-scale equivalent of compressing air into a tank, you're having little affect on the substrate flammabilities and you're not even changing their chemical bonding, you're just cramming lithium ions into the space between their atoms. The flammabilty of some types comes from side effects, such as flammable electrolytes or membrane failures leading to lithium metal plating out; these aren't a fundamental aspect of the energy storage process.
Now, li-air, that involves an actual lithium metal electrode, and that is fundamentally flammable. Of course, so is gasoline. I have no doubt that they can reduce fire risks on li-air cells and keep them properly contained to prevent failure propagations. My bigger issues with li-air are its terrible efficiency, lifespan, and cost. I'm certain the latter would come down, and I expect that they can improve the lifespan, but I'm a bit uneasy about how much they can improve its efficiency. Right now, they're as inefficient as a fuel cell. : Who wants to waste three times as much power per mile as is necessary?
Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
I don't know what the parent was thinking but what if there ended up being two elements with the same number if protons but different phisical properties due to some yet to be discovered reason.
How would something like that be treated? I mean for instance, a noble gas which is solid at room temperature and becomed a superconductor at the same time. Lets run with the fucking magnets and say something with the neutron bond causes the different behavior.
The weight of lithium is pretty irrelevant. There are no currently existing battery technologies where Li is more than 10% of the total weight of the battery, and standard battery types are significantly below that. If the active ion weight were the prime factor, there would be more interest in beryllium batteries (just 30% more weight vs. twice the charge per ion).
Tesla Motors, Inc. Is Itching for More and Better Batteries by: Anders Bylund
And then at the very bottom of the article:
Anders Bylund owns shares of Tesla Motors. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors and Tesla Motors. The Motley Fool owns shares of Tesla Motors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.
God I hate these ad pieces disguised as news.
> I know it's not XKCD, but there's relevant SMBC [smbc-comics.com] and PHD [phdcomics.com] comics.
Minor complaint with the second: we know from studies that the problem is not the university PR departments, but the researchers themselves.
> That $100 car battery? A lithium-ion equivalent that's 1/10th the weight for the same
> capacity and probably even more cold cranking amps might be $80.
Sheesh. Why not also demand it be made out of unicorn tails and magic dust?
Li-ion is 1/3rd the weight. 1/3rd, not 1/10th. It doesn't have to be any lighter.
Li-ion also has less *power*. Be sure you understand the difference between *power* and *energy*. A li-ion battery will have *less* cranking amps, not more.
The battery pack is not the bulk of the price of an electric car. It's all the other bits.
So it is not going to drive down the price, not by any reasonable amount.
What is needed is a single company making the motors and standardization. If the Govt demanded that all cars follow a standard motor design then suddenly costs will drop. Ford,GM,Toyota,Honda are NOT going to standardize unless forced to. And prices will not drop until there is a standard that is interchangeable.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I liked the "Thomas Covenant" series, too.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
There might be another lighter element between lithium and hydrogen that we don't know about.
Lithium
Number of Protons/Electrons: 3
Number of Neutrons: 4
Hydrogen
Number of Protons/Electrons: 1
Number of Neutrons: 0
You are correct, there are quite a few possibilities for elements in between (whatever that really means), Many of those we call those Ions, but some are such unstable configurations (if they can exist at all) that as far as we are concerned, they don't really exist
Some of those possible combinations we refer to as Helium (or its Ions)
Welcome to 9th grade Chemistry.
...but completely different properties ...
Properties that as yet we have not encountered, have no way to experience, or measure.....possible, sure. But then if they did, this would introduce a different classification system. So rather than refer to these things as Elements we might call them Smelements...........
Hmmm, I think you're on to something here.
So does Sodium. But do you notice how table salt doesn't burn in water?
There's no lithium metal in lithium /ion/ cells. The whole lithium catching on fire thing is to do with them having a rather volatile solvent as part of the electrolyte (something similar to ether).
That's not necessarily true. When lithium batteries are charged at a low temperature, lithium metal plates the anode. This could certainly be a problem for electric cars, as they may not be in a warm garage as they are charging.
Enigma
I propose that we go back to foot-powered automobiles as shown in that documentary called The Flintstones. Bonus: We'll save energy by getting all sorts of trained animals to do things for us instead of powering machines to do them.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Yes, so it does. I stand recorrected.
-- hendrik
The universe is big- something on a quantum level could possible make this happen. A proton is not the smallest part of an element. If this was to happen, it is possible it could be introduced via comet and we would have a way to encounter, experience, and measure- although it msy take time to understand.
Like i said, we thought we knew everything about physics once then it was turned upside down by Einstein. I do see how we would classify it differrently but i doubt anything would be renamed.
Since we define elements by the number of protons, that would be basically impossible.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I don't know what the parent was thinking but what if there ended up being two elements with the same number if protons but different phisical properties due to some yet to be discovered reason.
Well, we already have a word for atoms with the same number of protons but differences in some other property: isotope. Whether a difference in something other than number of neutrons would use the term "isotope" or some other new term is a decision that will have to be made if and when the discovery is made.
Won't we run into some kind of lithium shortage if the demand for li-ion batteries raises ?
Or at least a increase in raw material price offsetting the decrease in manufacturing costs.
Most lead acid batteries don't like being discharged really quickly, ones designed for cold cranking amps tend to not like being too deeply run down either. Right now for sixty dollars I can purchase an 11.1v lithium polymer battery that can output well over 250 amps co tinuously and 500 amps in bursts that's on a four amp hour battery. Up the capacity and the maximum current can get crazy
Isotopes are not considered chemically different from each other as they only differ in neutrons . As understood, the neutrons seem to help hold the atom together. It also appears that the number of neutrons increases non linearly in relation to the number of protons, to the point where elements with large number of protons are unstable.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Or, "Yeah, bitch! Magnets!"
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
An interesting thing to think about is what would happen if we were able to exchange all the electrons with another particle that had negative charge. The chemical properties of a material are actually due to how electrons interact with each other. There are "muonic atoms" that have nuclei of muons instead of protons, but the electrons are still the same and the atom behaves similarly to it's protonic counterpart. I'm guessing that if there is another fermion with a negative charge, it would behave similarly in place of an electron, but perhaps not quite the same, giving us a broader range of possible chemical interactions.
As an aside from my main point, if something like muonic atoms were stable over the long term, they would make extremely light compounds.
I also just realized I got some points wrong about the muon, since it too is a lepton. Building a nucleus of more than 1 muon would be problematic. The main point holds though. There are subatomic particles that contain charge that might be used to build "atoms". However, I don't know if there are any stable configurations of them.
Disregard. I posted this under the wrong post.
I also just realized I got some points wrong about the muon, since it too is a lepton. Building a nucleus of more than 1 muon would be problematic. The main point holds though. There are subatomic particles that contain charge that might be used to build "atoms". However, I don't know if there are any stable configurations of them.
(Also, I posted this by mistake under someone else's message. Adding this to get it passed the "exact comment already posted" filter.)
"Hell, Dr. Fred, if we put enough energy into the damn stable thing, just think how big an instantaneous charge we can drain out!"
where's the Kickstarter link?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Li-ion is 1/3rd the weight. 1/3rd, not 1/10th. It doesn't have to be any lighter.
Did you factor in that you need at least 50% more amp-hours to avoid deep discharging the lead-acid battery because, as walshy007 pointed out, ones designed for cranking over an engine don't like being deeply discharged?
I will admit to rounding and making a bit of a WAG though - 1/7th would have been closer. Oh, and the battery wouldn't actually be cheaper, but it'd last longer.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up that a liIon will stop working at around -25C instead of -40C. Though there are chemistries that work at colder temperatures.
Be sure you understand the difference between *power* and *energy*.
Be more condescending, why don't you? Power is energy over time.
I don't read AC A human right
Those are called isotopes.
The theoretical "muonic atom" would have muons replacing electrons, not the nucleus (protons and neutrons). If you really want to consider something interesting, look up the theoretical properties of atoms with proton numbers above 173. There is a theoretical "island of stability" where the half-lifes stop being measured in fractions of a second, but the size of the nuclei involved also get so large as to require electrons in the outer valences to have superluminal velocities.
Are you using the term "nucleus" to include the valence electrons? Muons would have a charge of -1, same as that of the electron. You couldn't replace protons with muons, since the charge would be opposite and, more importantly, muons do not interact with the strong force.
There are positively charged muons or antimuons. They do capture electrons. However, as I stated in my correction, having more than one as the nucleus would be problematic.
And again here.... There are positively charged muons.
Did you read all of them? I enjoyed them far more than I ever did any of the Dune books but I have mixed feelings about the way he ended it.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I read all of the original six when I was in junior high/high school. I have not read the final 4. Would you suggest I give them a go?
As for the Dune series, I liked the first book, but they went downhill fast after that. The final one(s) was/were nearly incomprehensible. The only funny thing I got from them is that with Duncan Idaho being a ghola, everyone could have their "own private Idaho".
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
LOL... GLUEons! I see what you did there.
Ah, I'm not sure.
Some of it is fascinating but a lot of it smacks of "deus ex machina". And I don't like that he incorporated time travel although one of the ways that it was done was interesting. If the 2 Chronicles trilogies are all that you've read of his work, I'd sooner recommend his Gap series, which is sci-fi, not fantasy, the 2 Mordant books or even his short stories collection Daughter of Regals, which includes a story he deleted from the Illearth War called Gilden-fire that features the Bloodguard.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I have one in my garage too. But the present is still gas powered cars.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.