Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stanford Develops Fast-Charging, Stable Aluminum Battery

Posted by Soulskill on from the current-events dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Stanford researchers have announced the creation of an aluminum-ion battery that they say will charge quicker, last longer, and be generally safer than common lithium-ion batteries. "Aluminum has long been an attractive material for batteries, mainly because of its low cost, low flammability and high-charge storage capacity. For decades, researchers have tried unsuccessfully to develop a commercially viable aluminum-ion battery. A key challenge has been finding materials capable of producing sufficient voltage after repeated cycles of charging and discharging. ... For the experimental battery, the Stanford team placed the aluminum anode and graphite cathode, along with an ionic liquid electrolyte, inside a flexible, polymer-coated pouch." The researchers' main challenges now are getting the battery to produce a higher voltage and store energy at a higher densities.

142 comments

  1. Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ...another increase in human's capacity to consume more energy, faster.

    1. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't be stupid. We're fucking up our planet because of our addiction to fossil fuels. If this actually pans out, then it'll make electric vehicles very economical, and will completely obsolete gasoline-powered cars, which is easily the biggest source of our carbon pollution. We'll need more electric generation capacity of course, but that can be done with lots of different sources, including carbon-free ones such as solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear.

      With the obvious problems with our environment at this time, it's my opinion that replacing gas cars with EVs ASAP is a screaming emergency.

    2. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Actually, our addiction to reproduction is fucking up the planet. Since there is no escape route (space is a dead end), electric cars vs gasoline is fiddling while Rome is burning.
      Given that we seem to be regressing towards a medieval fiefdom-style economy, no one will be able to AFFORD a car soon!

    3. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find this is self limiting. The limit just may not work the way you want it to.

    4. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, our addiction to reproduction is fucking up the planet.

      That addiction is not universal. Advanced economies don't over reproduce. Among indigenous 'muricans, population is at replacement. Most Western European nations are actually declining. The Japanese government is marketing parenthood to their youth because they've basically stopped breeding.

    5. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The 70s called and want you back. In every developed nation, we've reached zero population growth, except for immigration. Every time people get to a high enough state of wealth, they stop having lots of kids (except for a few wackos like the Duggars). All the other nations are developing pretty rapidly at this point; China has a huge and growing middle class, and labor rates have grown so much that they're going to be looking at outsourcing stuff to cheaper countries before long. Eventually, we're going to have to figure out how to get along in our societies without ever-increasing populations.

    6. Re:Just what we need... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      obsolete gasoline-powered cars, which is easily the biggest source of our carbon pollution

      No, that's not the case. Heating and cooling the buildings that house billions of people, and doing things like farming and treating/transporting water and other important things are hugely more polluting than cars. Electric cars are just going to move the pollution to another place. That won't help until aging hippie hand-wringers stop getting their panties in a twist, and get out of the way of us building a lot more modern nuclear power plants. Nothing else will even put a dent in it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Just what we need... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Population growth as a global threat is entirely discredited. Point to some nation where pop growth is noticeable, and you'll find a nation where food supplies are hampered by war, dictators, or racial strife. Food on our planet, even in Africa, can be produced in abundance. Getting it to those who need it, especially in refugee camps, is the first problem.

      And Africa seems to have more than its share of strife. The UN has certainly punted on that, and the US should rethink its policies. The list is long enough to find at least one conflict to address.

      Pop growth is an old and cheap canard. Stick to global climate change. That scam is pretty much still being pushed hard.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Just what we need... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That won't help until aging hippie hand-wringers stop getting their panties in a twist,

      Surely washing clothes by hand cuts down on energy usage :)

    9. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Population growth as a global threat is entirely discredited.

      Umm....really???? By who exactly???
      Even with zero population growth from now on, if the existing 7 billion people all end up trying to achieve the average westerner's standard of living we're boned.
      I have no doubt we can produce enough food to feed everyone...unless everyone wants to eat like the average westerner.
      What impact do you think it will have on resources if all 7 billion people start driving cars like the average westerner.
      You talk about the strife in Africa as if it's unrelated. What causes strife? It's generally when there aren't enough resources to go around. Africa is constantly being plundered by developed nations and there often aren't enough leftovers for the locals....which causes war!

    10. Re:Just what we need... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      gasoline-powered cars, which is easily the biggest source of our carbon pollution

      Nope, not even close. If you want to make an argument, don't just pull crap out of your arse - it just makes you look dumb.

      I do agree our addiction to fossil fuels is a huge problem, but moving to EV cars now won't make one jot of difference, because the electricity we use to charge them comes from... fossil fuels. Of course it's easier to replace fixed generating plants with alternative energy, so EV cars will get greener over time as that transition is made. But right now, buying an EV just to claim green credentials is largely an illusion.

    11. Re:Just what we need... by Bongo · · Score: 1

      A "resource" can also be people's brains, just as it used to mean people's muscles, ie. slavery.

      The point is, people invented stuff, which meant we could do far more, using stuff which was previously of no use. Resources can be "created".

      I mean, that's the whole point about green technology isn't it? Use something which was previous mostly useless, like tides and wind. Likewise, we'll "create" new "resources" if we can invent new ways of doing stuff. And if you're worried about running out of rocks, well we might be able to invent ways of using asteroids.

      You can't "run out of resources" as such, rather, you can run out of imagination and science.

      I mean, I agree it is a race, population versus ingenuity, but we've always had that race, there has always been survival pressure.

      And the "let's just stop" option, doesn't put off the inevitable "running out" either, it just means a long period of stagnation, followed by extinction anyhow.

      It is "create" or "die".

    12. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      average westerner != average american

      I'm a westerner, and I don't driver a car, I use a bike mostly, and take public transport when it's to far
      I'm not alone in that 17% of my generation does the same around these parts

    13. Re: Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here is the kicker...high capacity batteries made from relatively cheap materials means that every house with a solar array can come off the grid. Additionally, those houses can now recharge electric vehicles too. The ultimate in energy independence. Too bad we won't see it because your big utilities are going to legislate and tax that option into oblivion rather than face economic extinction. Say hello to the politics of big business.

    14. Re:Just what we need... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Some of the energy that charges them comes from fossil fuels, some from other sources. The exact mix varies a lot depending on locale and is close to zero for fossil fuels in some places. One of the big issues with renewables such as solar and photovoltaic is that they are bursty, but having a load of storage devices connected to a smart grid will help this: program your car to keep the battery at over 70% capacity for your regular commute and let it charge more when electricity is cheap and sell back to the grid when it's expensive.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advanced economies are ALREADY vastly over-reproduced. We need a one-child policy for several generations to bring even advanced economies down to remotely reasonable numbers.

      When non-human, non-domesticated land animals catch up in collective weight to humans and their food animals, I think that would be a nice place to level-out. That would take several halvings of the human population.

    16. Re:Just what we need... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I read that the on average, having one child is the equivalent of driving 10 hummers to work every day. Don't blame the people who have 2mpg vehicles, blame the people who have children.

    17. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be stupid. We're fucking up our planet because of our addiction to fossil fuels.

      And I give a flying fuck about the planet because????

    18. Re:Just what we need... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Surely washing clothes by hand cuts down on energy usage :)

      That may or may not be the case. It depends heavily on the energy investment for that water - how much energy went into getting it, purifying it, distributing it, and heating it. Next, consider the amount of soap you are using. A modern high efficiency washing machine uses very little soap per clothing article. Human hand washing (clothes or dishes) tend to oversoap, which is wasteful on its own, but also requires more water to rinse out. Finally, consider the energy used for drying the clothes. Hand-washing is usually associated with line-drying, but you might still be using an electric dryer.

      If you are hunched over a creek, scrubbing your clothes on a rock with freezing, chapped hands, followed by line-drying in the sun, then you clearly are doing better than the status quo. But if you are filling a great big tub multiple times (wash, rinse, etc.), with water that came from oil-fired desalination plants and heated to a balmy 30 C, then using an electric dryer on high, "hand washing" will clearly be more energy-intensive.

    19. Re:Just what we need... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >That would take several halvings of the human population.

      How do you figure? Even assuming humans and our animals accounted for 100% of the planet's biomass, after a single halving that would be reduced to... wait for it... 50%.

      Meanwhile, as already mentioned, the advanced economies have pretty much already stopped growing and are beginning to shrink - it's the developing economies that are still experiencing a population explosion, and they're mostly rapidly reducing their reproduction rates as well as they get access to birth control family planning education. Of course projections are still that we'll handily break 10 billion by mid-century before the total population begins to fall, even if we achieved global zero population growth today, simply due to the generational lag. That's going to be rough - the developed world will likely need to give up its gross overconsumption, or there's a fair chance we'll be looking at global food wars, especially thanks to the chilling effects of climate change on agriculture during the transition period. But hey, nothing leads to population reduction like massive global famine and warfare, right?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Heating and cooling the buildings that house billions of people, and doing things like farming and treating/transporting water and other important things are hugely more polluting than cars.

      Wrong. Most of those things (particularly HVAC) can be done with electricity, so it's at least highly feasible to move that to non-fossil-fuel energy sources.

      Electric cars are just going to move the pollution to another place.

      Wrong, they allow you to use non-fossil-fuel energy sources. They're also far more efficient than small ICE engines, so even if your energy source is fossil fuel it's still more efficient.

      That won't help until aging hippie hand-wringers stop getting their panties in a twist, and get out of the way of us building a lot more modern nuclear power plants. Nothing else will even put a dent in it.

      Wrong again. As I said above, EVs are so much more efficient that even if you stuck with fossil fuel power plants it'd be more efficient than millions of shitty, poorly maintained, inefficient gas engines. And solar power is being used more and more; Germany gets a huge amount of power from solar, and that's not a particularly sunny place unlike much of the US. Wind is also supplying a lot of power these days.

    21. Re: Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really think about it modern medicine is messing up the planet. Without it we would not be living as long. Aid groups to third world countries is leading to overpopulation. It has caused a reductions in infant mortality (good) but no more one bothered to tell the people you don't need to have 5 kids to have two survive .
      The whole global warming issue has been hijacked by the radical left that thesis is income redistribution . Global warming is yet it's new vehicle to their goal of taking hard working people's les money for their own benefit . The left is fighting to keep 6 day a week mail delivery where in many areas a post man drives stop and go mailbox to mailbox , drive way to driveway in sub 10 mpg vehicles . No concern about global warming as long as their Union alies get a payday out of the extra workers and they then get political kickbacks from union.

      With that said the earth is warming and we need to push technology forward to reduce it's affects . But the solution is not to tax people back to the Middle Ages to do it. The solution is technology. We still flare off most methane from sewage plants. We need to get smart about dealing with our garbage and we need to get realistic about third world growth . If the third world joins the first world in terms of autos and development . Nothing we are doing in the use will matter

    22. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Modern washing machines (esp. horizontal-axis ones) are so water and energy efficient it's just idiotic to bother washing clothes by hand. It's just like modern dishwashers; they're far more efficient (both water and energy, since you need hot water to wash dishes well, and it takes a lot of energy to heat water) than washing dishes by hand.

      Dryers are different, since they do use a lot of power (just look at the electric cord on them): you can dry things in the air outside. However this requires you to have decently warm outside temperatures, no rain, and low enough humidity. These conditions may not reliably exist for you.

    23. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It makes you look dumb when you pull this crap out of your ass. EVs are so much more efficient than gas cars that even if they're ultimately powered by fossil-fuel power plants, today's fossil fuel plants are so much more efficient than gas engines that you'd still use less energy and generate less pollution.

    24. Re: Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't worry about global warming when they are smoking the weed

    25. Re: Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't happan because the big unions won't allow . The unions are more powerful with democratic candidates then the big utilities . The loss of union jobs has held back many modern innovations over the years . First the textile industries in New England , the post office 6 day a week delivery ( solution proposed by the union is email tax fyi) and here in nyc. The union has prevented the mets for over 20 years from using technology to reduce labor expenses and improve services . The cost multiple billions in added cost and a new tax added every 5 years due to deficits.

      The truth is not all people can afford to install and maintain solar arrays on their homes . The big utilities don't make that much profit as a percentage of sales . Profit margin is set by the government . If you reduce the volume through utility lines then remaining customers will have to pick up the tab . The solution will be taxing those with solar arrays . It's the big democratic playbook . The same is going down with cars . Early adopters (rich folks with teslas) have dried up the fuel taxes needed to Mai gain road and within a few years we will be paying a tax for every mile driven

    26. Re: Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The planet will be fine . It will adopt as it always has . It may be different then it is now but it will survive . Did people scream and yell when the glaciers melted and receded at the end of the ice age . Remember the ocean rose and flooded. Key transportation routes such as the land bridge that connected Asia and North America!!!!

    27. Re:Just what we need... by DusterBar · · Score: 2

      Actually, the correlation of lower birth rates is usually related to education and occupation. Lower skilled, lower educated groups tend to have more children. Part of this could be explained by the actual need for "labor" in the family farm/business/etc if there was a conscious choice made in that direction.

    28. Re:Just what we need... by meustrus · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? Even assuming humans and our animals accounted for 100% of the planet's biomass, after a single halving that would be reduced to... wait for it... 50%.

      No. Percentages do not work that way - it would be reduced to 100% in your example. Let's use some absolute numbers: assume there are 99 humans to every 1 non-domesticated animal. Humanity is then 99% of the population. Halve the human population, and say it's now 49 humans to 1 non-domesticated animal. Now humans are 98% of the population.

      Real numbers are surprising on the actual proportions. I offer you this visual representation.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    29. Re:Just what we need... by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      Best argument to a global basic income I've heard so far.

    30. Re:Just what we need... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > That won't help until aging hippie hand-wringers stop getting their panties in a twist,
      > and get out of the way of us building a lot more modern nuclear power plants

      The only thing stopping nuclear power is the cost of the plants.

      They cost $8/W CAPEX and come in sizes of 900MW and up. Finding someone willing to put up the tens of billions of dollars needed to build a typical multi-unit plant is difficult in a market economy. That is the reason, *the only reason*, that more nukes aren't being built.

      But just think about your own argument for a second. Do you really believe that nukes are so horribly supported that the entire industry has been stopped dead by "aging hippie hand-wringers"? If you really believe that, do you actually *want* that apparently utterly incompetent industry building nukes?

      Here's actual up to date numbers, turn to page 11:

      http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf

      > Nothing else will even put a dent in it.

      Nukes have put a very very small dent in the problem, and it grows smaller every year. Meanwhile, NG, wind and solar are putting huge dents in it, every year. The last EIA numbers suggest that renewables will be installed at ten times the rate of nukes, on a power-delivered basis:

      http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/
      http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492

      Nukes are dead, they committed suicide.

    31. Re:Just what we need... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Yes, considering human advancement can be measured by energy consumption it's EXACTLY what we need. And even better that it uses Aluminum instead of toxic Lithium. Now turn in your geek card and get the fuck out. You're not a techie, not a nerd, not a geek, you're just a progressive liberal troll who thinks living like a Hobbit is where it's at. So go take your troll act somewhere else.

    32. Re:Just what we need... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 0

      > 's just like modern dishwashers; they're far more efficient

      I have a brand new Frigidaire dishwasher. It's most efficient cycle, using air drying and "eco mode", uses 22 litres of water, takes 99 minutes to complete, and something like 2 to 3 kWh of power. That is in addition to the gas water heater that supplied the hot water.

      I can do that same load of dishes in less than 10 minutes, typically closer to five. I use no electricity to do so, and about 15 to 20 litres of water. Those who use a stoppered sink to rinse will reduce water use significantly.

      There are much more efficient models on the market, like the 18" Bosch I had in my last house. However, for north american users at least, the average dishwasher is easy to outperform.

    33. Re:Just what we need... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > Most of those things (particularly HVAC) can be done with electricity

      And for most, georeturn HVAC is far, far more energy efficient than any other source.

      It's expensive when everyone has their own tubing, but it seems to me there's a lot of municipal greywater that could be serving this purpose.

    34. Re:Just what we need... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Nope, not even close

      Here we go, this should be good...

      > but moving to EV cars now won't make one jot of difference

      Moving to EVs will lower emissions by about one half...

      > because the electricity we use to charge them comes from... fossil fuels ...because the energy we use to charge them comes from a mixture of sources that are, on average, far less polluting than a gasoline engine:

      https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/

      Moreover, the most fantastical rate that we could possibly make the move to EV's is slower than the rate we're already greening the electrical supply, so EV's will continue to improve over time at a rate gasoline improvements can't match:

      https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/future-grid-energy-in-the-not-so-distance/

      Which is really besides the point, because the emissions of most of the industrialized world is already below the point where you're better off with an EV:

      https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/electric-cars-and-carbon-intensity/

      And all that we really need is cheaper batteries, which we should be crossing gasoline numbers around 2020:

      https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/ev-battery-prices-falling-rapidly/

      > EV just to claim green credentials is largely an illusion

      A statement that you might believe if you've never really looked at the issue or run a single number to back up your prejudices.

    35. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I have a brand new Frigidaire dishwasher. It's most efficient cycle, using air drying and "eco mode", uses 22 litres of water, takes 99 minutes to complete, and something like 2 to 3 kWh of power. That is in addition to the gas water heater that supplied the hot water.

      Your dishwasher is likely using most of its power to heat the water it uses beyond the temperature it's getting it from the water heater. Boiling-hot water works wonders in cleaning dishes.

      Did you actually measure your dishwasher's power usage in this cycle with a power meter?

      Also, I completely doubt that you can clean the dishes nearly as well by hand. There's even been studies on this and the effect on children's immune systems; hand-washed dishes just aren't very clean (which actually helps the kids on average, but for older people or anyone with a compromised immune system isn't a good thing).

    36. Re:Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Those are excellent points. Geothermal HVAC is extremely efficient, unfortunately its initial cost is higher so it's not used that much.

    37. Re: Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, no Teslas and other electric vehicles have not made a significant impact on the highway funds, the problem might exist, eventually, if the gas tax was the only way and gasoline became obsolete, but right now, the issue is the rate versus costs. In the US anyway.

      Other places don't have that issue for some reason.

    38. Re:Just what we need... by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      If this actually pans out, then it'll make electric vehicles very economical

      It will also help mightily if night-time storage of daytime-generated (PV) electricity can be made much more economical (especially for regions where "grid-as-storage" is not viable, or won't be viable once the financial incentives for doing so been done away with).

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    39. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think Mexicans would stop crossing illegally if we provided them a basic income with the requirement they live in Mexico? I mean, it doesn't solve the issue of why people want to leave Mexico, but I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to them.

    40. Re:Just what we need... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, if you're talking *immediately*, then yes, it's different. I was presuming the new steady-state would be the relevant number, in which case halving the resource demands would make room for the wild populations to expand. Though considering the densities we maintain, the fact that we'd abandon the most desirable land last, and the fact that we would probably continue exterminating wildlife to maintain agriculturally convenient populations (neither wolf packs nor roving herds of elephants are conductive to farming) we might indeed still need several halvings.

      Not a lot of ways of doing that cleanly though. A global one-child policy might do it, though the population would still continue ballooning for a while as generational lag takes its due. With climate change mucking with farming for the next few centuries though... well I try to maintain hope that such a gentle path is still feasible. Otherwise it's famine and war, or, if we're lucky, a plague like mankind has never seen before.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    41. Re:Just what we need... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      can be done with electricity

      Which has nothing to do with the post I was responding to, which asserted that internal combustion cars are "the biggest source of carbon pollution." I'm pointing out that that post is simply incorrect. Wrong. Bad information, commonly spread around as if it were true. It's not.

      You're talking about what could, in principle, be done. In the future. Which is not now. Which has nothing to do with that GP's false meme about cars and pollution.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    42. Re:Just what we need... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that nukes are so horribly supported that the entire industry has been stopped dead by "aging hippie hand-wringers"?

      In effect, yes. Because of undue squeaky wheel influence over legislators that don't want to upset their small number of professional activist-type far left base members, the people in question play a large if somewhat indirect role in blocking such things. The resulting regulatory hurdles make what certainly is (at the infrastructure level) an expensive proposition prohibitively expensive because of the multi-decade red tape and litigation hurdles that must also be crossed. So much so that the efforts are essentially abandoned before they begin.

      Nukes have put a very very small dent in the problem

      Exactly my point. They aren't being allowed to play the role they could. Meanwhile, the public consciousness is being fixated on other non-solutions like wind and solar, which themselves don't put a dent (let along a reliable dent) in the problem - and if scaled up to the point they'd make a serious difference, would become their own special kind of blight. Never mind that traditional grid suppliers still have be there any way, at full capacity, to deal with the inevitable slack in the wind/solar supply, day to day.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    43. Re:Just what we need... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      run a single number to back up your prejudices

      How ironic that you decide to take me to task on this - a person who is actually a builder of EVs and a great believer in the benefits of an electric power-train. My point was merely that the OP's claim that petroleum-powered vehicles is the biggest source of carbon pollution is a pile of crap, as your own quoted figures demonstrate. If every car on the planet were replaced overnight by an EV, carbon pollution would not change significantly, and in any case that could never happen.

      Of course EVs are the way forward for cars, and I'd love to see it - the sooner the better. But in the real world things change slowly for all sorts of reasons - technology being only one small component of that. You even make the point yourself about the "greening of the electrical supply" - which was exactly a point I was trying to make as well! By the time we're all driving EVs, other factors will be in play that complicate the picture - probably for the better. Hell, the fusion problem could be cracked by then making the whole fossil fuel vs. "alternative" argument go away.

    44. Re:Just what we need... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Your dishwasher has a hot water connection? I've never seen one that had more than a cold water connection on it. I suspect if you check it won't have one and virtually all the power it uses is used to heat the water, besides that it just pump some water round for a while.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    45. Re: Just what we need... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Think about it, why is lithium used for mobile applications now instead of nickel or lead? Weight! Aluminum batteries would be substantially heavier, and take more energy to move around. Hardly a miracle to revolutionize EV's.

    46. Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumer dishwashers only have ONE water supply connection. It is usually connected to the HOT WATER supply line... I have never seen a dishwasher installed where it is connected to a cold water supply line.

    47. Re: Just what we need... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? One of the ions used in the electrolyte in a battery is probably not a majority of the battery's weight. And aluminum is one of the least-dense metals there is.

  2. The main challenges... by MasseKid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The researchers' main challenges now are getting the battery to produce a higher voltage and store energy at a higher densities."

    So basically, they're only challenges left are making it into a decent battery?

    1. Re:The main challenges... by msauve · · Score: 0

      I've developed a perpetual motion machine. My main challenge is getting it to work without energy input.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Sorta like how the geeks here say they have a penis, the main challenges are now to get it hard and store it in a moist place.

    3. Re:The main challenges... by Ken_g6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just because it's not a good battery for your laptop - yet - doesn't mean it's not a good battery for other applications.

      Compare it to lead-acid, for instance. It's lighter, it's probably non-toxic (the electrolyte is unknown), and I'd be surprised if it were much more expensive. And it charges fast, so it probably discharges fast too. Sounds like a great starter battery for cars or scooters, etc.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    4. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety and power are a trade-off. Any time you gather a large amount of energy in one place, you also create the potential for that energy to discharge uncontrollably: voltage is electric potential, which is energy that can power an explosion. By focusing on the benefits of battery safety, they're admitting that they have created a low-powered storage device.

      It'll find a use. Just not in laptops.

    5. Re:The main challenges... by savuporo · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but if your energy density is so low that a supercapacitor beats it, you have nothing useful, as they will always have superior power density.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    6. Re:The main challenges... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Store it"? You are doing it wrong.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:The main challenges... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Another use for an inexpensive long lasting battery is to store energy from solar panels for dark periods. In this application storage density isn't the primary concern.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    8. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to mix up concepts. Gathering a large amount of energy in one place doesn't necessarily create potential for it to discharge uncontrollably. A candy bar and other foods have higher energy density than explosives, but they don't have the same power density. Voltage is not energy, let alone energy that can power an explosion. You can build a high voltage device that has little stored energy (e.g. a high-pot tester) or one that has stored energy but low power (e.g. something with high output impedance).

      tl;dr power density is not the same as energy density.

    9. Re: The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds more like they tried the trick with making a battery from a lemon and now they want to see if they can make an actual useful battery.

    10. Re:The main challenges... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Huh.. What DO batteries do?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    11. Re:The main challenges... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      So basically, their only challenges left are making it into a decent battery?

      If you RTFA, they mention that it puts out close to 2 volts.
      While that's almost perfect as a replacement for lead-acid batteries, it's not enough to replace two AA batteries (2.4v/3v) or one lithium-ion (3.6~3.7v)

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:The main challenges... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Almost 2V you say? Considering a single AA is 1.2, 1.5, or 1.6V (Ni-Zn) I could see this having plenty of use in AA format, depending upon capacity.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:The main challenges... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The electrolyte is unknown"

      From like the third or fourth paragraph in the article:

      "The electrolyte is basically a salt that's liquid at room temperature"

      Molten salts, in an electrolyte, pretty much. Probably something like ethyl-methyl-imidazolium bis-(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)-imide

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:The main challenges... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      This is basically a large heater for MRE packages but controlled to make it useful in some way other than shorting out and creating heat. This isn't really new except for making it practical I guess.

    15. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you and we can surely make a minimal type version for it so it can be used for even mobile phones and laptops I don't know if there's anything wrong in that and you said that it's probably non-toxic so it would work fine.

    16. Re:The main challenges... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So basically, they're only challenges

      No, they are not only challenges. Presumably, they are normal people.

      Why do supposedly educated people persist in making spelling errors that wouldn't be acceptable in second grade?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:The main challenges... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      i presume they mean actually it being effective at delivering the voltage. the single cell voltage doesn't matter so much, you can stack them anyways.

      I think they're just using voltage in the stub just as "electricity yo!" and meant that the density and practicality aren't there in it. perhaps the way they built their pouch is also non scalable easily..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:The main challenges... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, they mention that it puts out close to 2 volts.
      While that's almost perfect as a replacement for lead-acid batteries, it's not enough to replace two AA batteries (2.4v/3v) or one lithium-ion (3.6~3.7v)

      If it's sufficiently close to 2V then it will be an ideal replacement for Li-Ion, simply by doubling the number of cells. A fully-charged Li-Ion is 4.1 or 4.2 volts, not 3.7... Have you ever even charged an 18650A cell?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:The main challenges... by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      While that's almost perfect as a replacement for lead-acid batteries, it's not enough to replace two AA batteries (2.4v/3v) or one lithium-ion (3.6~3.7v)

      I would argue that the cell voltage is largely irrelevant. If you need to put more cells in series, it doesn't matter much. What matters more is the energy density - if you end up with twice as many cells (to get voltage equivalent to li-ion), but have equal or better energy density (Whr/kg or Whr/L) at equal or better cost, then you still have a win.

    20. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive me if this is incredibly dense, but if it outputs two volts, why just put two in series?

    21. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that batteries store energy. But this particular thread isn't about batteries, it's about penises.

    22. Re:The main challenges... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Like most other "wonder" battery technologies of recent years. I predict that this one will not materialize in any useful form either.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    23. Re:The main challenges... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You might have a base to improve on, leading to better density than a supercapacitor. Just because it's not instantly jaw-dropping doesn't mean it's useless.

    24. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're useless. Dave420's a critic with zero of value himself in areas he criticizes on.

    25. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no no no
      If it's not superior for all applications in the first press release, all efforts should be abandoned in favor of GP's preferred solution, because that solution has no compromises! /sarcasm

    26. Re:The main challenges... by BaronAaron · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I can get the equivalent voltage of a li-ion cell by stringing together lemons. Doesn't mean it would fit in the back of my cell phone.

    27. Re:The main challenges... by Dan1701 · · Score: 1

      No, if you go and chase down the original article the electrolyte is NOT unknown, but an anhydrous aluminium chloride/organic chemical. The cells the researchers are producing are putting out around 1.9 to 2 volts, and the cells are resilient over at least 7500 charge/discharge cycles. The cathode is graphite foam built on a nickel foam substrate, the anode is aluminium foil.

      To be honest, the only real kicker about the entire battery is the fact that water in the electrolyte severely reduces the performance, but this could at least be mitigated in production by adding in a water absorbing chemical of some sort to the system. Apart from that it all seems very promising indeed, and as aluminium and carbon are both extremely common (as opposed to lithium, where the resources are limited) then commercialising this battery would seem to be an eminently sensible thing to do.

      The basic problem with power we have at the moment is not that we don't have enough, but that all the easy sources are diffuse and low density, or are bursty in nature. Solar cells, for instance, produce no power at night. Tidal generators also produce power only at set though predictable times. We already have good storage batteries, but the problem with them is that they are expensive.

      These cells have the potential (*ahem*) to be cheap. Cheap power storage solves a very great many problems, since we can then concentrate on developing cheap, efficient and durable solar cells knowing that there will be a market for the power and that this power can then be stored efficiently; if you lack power storage, then the effective momentary market price of solar electricity drops to almost nothing when the sun shines, and rises astronomically as the sun sets.

    28. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      transformer

    29. Re:The main challenges... by unrtst · · Score: 1

      "The researchers' main challenges now are getting the battery to produce a higher voltage and store energy at a higher densities."

      So basically, they're only challenges left are making it into a decent battery?

      Add the other quote from the summary, "A key challenge has been finding materials capable of producing sufficient voltage after repeated cycles of charging and discharging".

      So, for decades now, the key challenge has been the thing that is currently the main challenge for the researchers? IE. no real change.

    30. Re:The main challenges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your point that power density is not the same as energy density... However I agree that the other poster also had a valid point when they stated "voltage is electric potential, which is energy that can power an explosion" I think they meant that a spark from electric potential discharge could ignite volatile materials to explode...

  3. Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    If you believe that Aluminium has a low flammability hazard, please check the following links --

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2714682/Death-toll-rises-75-Chinese-factory-blast.html

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2501382/apple-mac/apple-confirms-aluminum-dust-caused-chinese-factory-explosions.html

    1. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Skidborg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Practically any material can cause terrific explosions when powdered and airborne. Sawdust explosions have reduced more than one lumber mill to ash, but that doesn't mean we stop building houses from wood.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    2. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's most certainly a lower flammability hazard than the Lithium and Magnesium being used in the current generation of batteries.

    3. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by frooddude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can light steel wool with a common cigarette lighter. We should definitely stop making firetrucks out of steel.

    4. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      No one smokes anymore, you can light steel wool with a fresh 9V and shoving it in the wool.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    5. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the things we europeans do right -- we build our houses out of stone.

    6. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the though I had. Powdered aluminium is used for thermobaric bombs.

    7. Re: Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And grain silos can explode.

      So are you going to stop eating bread?

    8. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Practically any material can cause terrific explosions when powdered and airborne. Sawdust explosions have reduced more than one lumber mill to ash, but that doesn't mean we stop building houses from wood.

      Time out outlaw bakeries. That flour is a fire hazard!

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    9. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by zieroh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is one of the things we europeans do right -- we build our houses out of stone.

      That's awesome for regions that don't have appreciable seismic activity.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    10. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one smokes anymore

      There are billions of people who don't read Vogue. But regardless of your community the cigarette lighter is a million times more common than 9V batteries.

    11. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 0

      I don't follow. I can't even think of a place that sells lighters in plain view, but the same places have racks of batteries.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    12. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      Practically every dollar store in North America has a box of lighters next to the cash register. They'll card you to buy them, but they're the universal method for setting things on fire.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    13. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello from Scandinavia, where many houses are built out of wood.

    14. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been to a convenience store? How about a grocery store? I'm pretty sure Home Depot sells them as well. They don't hide them. They're usually next to the matches.

    15. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who still builds houses from wood?

    16. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the Hindenburg, but that was powdered aluminium.

    17. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every smoke detector has a 9V battery.

    18. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should make them out of magnesium. The difference in weight would allow them to get to the fires much faster.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    19. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      They're easily found next to the charcoal and lighter fluid in every grocery store. How else do you light your 50000BTU_barbecue?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    20. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Every smoke detector has a 9V battery.

      Until the first time it goes off while you're cooking.

      Anyway, smoke detectors are storage space for dead 9V batteries.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    21. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Some of the indigenous people of South America did a remarkable job of building structures out of stone which are very earthquake safe. Not that it's a very cost effective method of construction. Although, with modern technology perhaps we could produce generic blocks with enough precision cheaply.

    22. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Gentlemen, why use lighters or batteries, when you can use the tool everyone carries, a common 1W laser

    23. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains why Tokyo was built out of wood

    24. Re:Aluminium -- low flammability ?? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Well then there must be odd Dollaramas here in Montreal, they all have their battery display cases at the cash registers, but I can't recall ever seeing a lighter there. Chocolate bars, yes.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
  4. Patent pending? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More patents for Stanford. The rich will get richer. Stanford is in the top 5 for universities granted patents. Schools still don't make enough money from tuition so they have to steal their students ideas.

    1. Re:Patent pending? by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      More patents for Stanford. The rich will get richer. Stanford is in the top 5 for universities granted patents. Schools still don't make enough money from tuition so they have to steal their students ideas.

      People who try to invent things tend to own more patents than people who do NOT try to invent things. Ideas without work tend to be worthless in many cases. It is the hard work of profs/students combined with the resources of the Schools that pays off for all the people involved. Tim S.

    2. Re:Patent pending? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stanford's policy is to get patents if a student develops it while working for the university, i.e. grad students are employees. This isn't universal though, as several other large private research universities due allow students to retain their patent (although will handle all of the legal work and fees if the student assigns ~40% to the university).

    3. Re:Patent pending? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Smart people get rich at an alarming rate. Maybe we need to stop them from being so smart? Or at least so industrious?

      Seriously, where do you go to school, Columbia? Bates?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  5. Where are all the exotic materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this battery uses aluminum and carbon. Come on! Where's all the weird stuff? Won't the electrolyte need to have a component that's explosive? Won't the polymer require a coating that includes some kind of odd dysprosium-yttrium-telluride?

    It won't do to have a fancy battery made out of cheap things.

    1. Re:Where are all the exotic materials? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Won't the electrolyte need to have a component that's explosive?

      The electrolyte is 80% CFl3 by volume. Sufficient?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Where are all the exotic materials? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      needs more brawndo

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Where are all the exotic materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of ClFl3. Alkyl halides are kinda boring in comparison.

    4. Re:Where are all the exotic materials? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The electrolyte is 80% CFl3 by volume. Sufficient?

      What's the other 20%? Hydrogen perperoxide, or anhydrous hydrazoic acid?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Tweet today from Elon Musk by dixonpete · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Battery "breakthroughs" need to state power *and* energy density (not the same thing), plus how long they last. They usually fail on energy."

    1. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      True, but an Al-ion battery definitely has potential*, even if this team hasn't achieved it yet.

      Al also has ~5x the physical density of Li at ~1/5th the price, so even if it doesn't outperform Li's energy density for a while it will still be better for many applications.

      * groan

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >aluminum anode and graphite cathode
      sounds like a modern aluminum capacitor. (im sure the slashdot grandpas remember previous gen aluminum capacitors that used firework ingredients to ensure a cheerful display when the magic smoke escapes)

    3. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by ras · · Score: 1

      Battery "breakthroughs" need to state power *and* energy density

      What if I told you I had a brand new battery to sell you. True, it only stores 0.14 WHr/kg (compared to 100WHr/kg for LiIon) and of course bugger all power density, but on the up side, the electrolyte is real cheap, and it's good for 10's of thousands of cycles.

      You probably tell me to piss off, but in doing to you have dismissed the most popular form of electricity storage we have - pumped storage. According to Wikipedia. US stores and releases 5GWh of electricity per day. I'd lay odds that's more the entire combined output of all rechargeable batteries in the country.

      The article made it pretty clear the potential breakthroughs were in cost and endurance. And they are right - they alone would suffice to make to this battery a success.

    4. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I'd lay odds that's more the entire combined output of all rechargeable batteries in the country.

      I'll take that bet. If you add all the batteries in Tesla model S, Chevy Volt Nissan Leaf, Toyota, Prias, Mitsu i-MiEV, Ford Focus Electric, etc they account for more than 5MWh. Just 2/3rd of the Tesla production accounts for over half the 5MWh.

    5. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you RTFS?

      One of the problems with the battery is a lack of potential...

    6. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wrote "5GW/h", not "5MW/h"...

    7. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      TFA article mentions this new battery's potential for just that: buffering of surplus renewable energy. They'll need to achieve a reasonable energy density for these batteries to be practical and make economic sense (especially for residential applications), but energy density doesn't need to be on the cutting edge like EV batteries are.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I told you I had a brand new battery to sell you.

      A battery produces electricity by means of electro-chemical reactions.
      A hydroelectrical installation works by converting gravitational potential, and is therefore not a battery.

    9. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by Megol · · Score: 1

      Yes but on the other hand it doesn't lack potential.

    10. Re:Tweet today from Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From that slide set: "Short shelf life, high corrosion rate, are barriers".

      Unfortunately it appears there is still a long way to go. . .

  7. Just like solar cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we're promised the world and made to believe that they are on the brink of engaging on full commercial production.
    But in the end, after waiting for decades we are still stuck with the same old technology.

  8. rtfa, kid by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    "A key challenge has been finding materials capable of producing sufficient voltage after repeated cycles of charging and discharging."

    they seem to have accomplished this.

    it is good news.

  9. Mod parent funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least one of us appreciates this pun...

  10. Aluminium is Flamable by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    You can light steel wool with a common cigarette lighter. We should definitely stop making firetrucks out of steel.

    Aluminium is actually far more flammable than steel. This is why they stopped using it for the superstructure of warships and you will not see aluminium armour. Aluminium is highly reactive but what stops it burning is that it very rapidly forms an inert, oxide layer in air which, unlike iron that has rust, remains strongly attached to the metal. However under the right conditions you can overcome this and then aluminium burns which is clearly not the case for steel.

    However I expect that it will be a lot safer in a battery than lithium because of the protective oxide layer...unless the battery technology circumvents the formation of this layer in someway to make the battery function.

    1. Re:Aluminium is Flamable by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Aluminium is highly reactive but what stops it burning is that it very rapidly forms an inert, oxide layer in air which, unlike iron that has rust, remains strongly attached to the metal. However under the right conditions you can overcome this and then aluminium burns which is clearly not the case for steel.

      And you know what can do it? Lithium. It's why there's a restriction on lithium batteries sent via airmail - lithium eats at the aluminum oxide and basically destroys it since the exposed aluminum forms new aluminum oxide, which is reacted with the lithium and thus the aluminum effectively dissolves.

      I think gallium also has a similar effect, but is even more insidious - if you put gallium on aluminum, the gallium atoms migrate into the aluminum bulk, which greatly weakens it, and even worse, you can't really see anything happening. an impressive demonstration involves your typical soda can and a blob of gallium. AFter a few minutes, the pop-top releases the entire lid, if not completely popping on its own.

    2. Re:Aluminium is Flamable by dbIII · · Score: 1

      However under the right conditions you can overcome this and then aluminium burns which is clearly not the case for steel.

      It still burns it's just harder to do. That's how an oxy-acetylene cutter works after all.

    3. Re:Aluminium is Flamable by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yep, aluiminium is more reactive than steel, though you can also burn steel, which is how a thermal lance operates.

      As for the link, I don't know about the other cases, but that's incorrect in the case of the HMS Sheffield. It was struck with a turbojet powered exocet missile. The missile failed to explode but dumped a fair fraction of it's fuel (which has much more energy than the warhead) and ignited it. The missile strike also knocked out the water main used for firefighting.

      So almost all of the damage was caused by a giant fuel fire. See also:

      http://www.hazegray.org/faq/sm...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Aluminium is Flamable by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      And you know what can do it? Lithium.

      I did not argue that lithium was not a fire hazard only that, in the right circumstances, aluminium can be as well so there is still a need to be careful.

    5. Re:Aluminium is Flamable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thermite is powered aluminum and powered iron oxide in equal amounts by weight. Comes out to roughly 2X aluminum by volume. Works better if you can get hematite (FeO3) or magnetite (FeO4) which have more oxygen bound to the iron atom than just iron oxide (FeO2). Add something that burns at a high enough temperature to start the reaction (magnesium is frequently used) and you have a self-sustaining highly exothermic reaction that will not stop until the fuel is consumed.

      IE you have a fire that burns hot enough it is used to destroy engine blocks when armies have to ditch vehicles and that cannot be put out.

  11. It did happen but not in the bargain bin yet by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The good stuff is in space. The cheap stuff is on the roof. The only reason we are stuck with "the same old technology" is because we are looking at the bottom of the market where an economy of scale meshing with semiconductors means we have similar stuff to what was used twenty years ago - elsewhere other stuff is in use.

  12. Tortoise and the hare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake me up when this tortoise has the energy density to get within shouting distance of relevancy.

  13. Re: Bargain bin by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    Don't underestimate the importance of the bargain bin. Recently the cheap stuff has become cheap enough to make it commercially interesting even without subsidies.

    According to Wikipedia, we already have grid parity in many scenarios: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity#Reaching_parity.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  14. But is it transparent? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    No? I am unimpressed.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  15. Good Progress by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    An aluminum ion battery would be a huge advance, especially (particularly) if it's cheaper.

    Doesn't look like they'll be ready in time for my battery replacement, but who knows.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  16. Have they just reinvented the capacitor? by niks42 · · Score: 1

    Aluminium ... electrolyte ... stores large amounts of energy ... isn't this just an electrolytic capacitor?

  17. lots of articles online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't aware that aluminium can hold an electric charge. Cool.

    I found a whole bunch of articles about the aluminium battery.

    Aluminium battery charges smartphones in 60 seconds
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/07/aluminium-ion-battery

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/new-aluminium-phone-battery-will-charge-in-a-minute-can-be-drilled-and-bent-10159339.html
    New aluminium phone battery will charge in a minute, can be drilled and bent

  18. Carded when buying lighters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    every convenience store, walmart, target, etc,and grocery store I've been to in the USA has stacks of them next to the checkout counters. I've never been nor have seen anyone carded when buying one.

  19. Re: Bargain bin by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The expensive space usage stuff is starting to head that way as well thanks to combining small cells with large cheap mirrors.

    It also appears that the conventional stuff is now far better housed and mounted. A big hailstorm came through near where I live in November and there's still quite a lot of roof repair and window replacement going on now (April) yet I didn't see a single damaged panel. That may have been due to the direction the storm came from, but even then it demonstrates that the solar panels are a lot more resistant to storm damage than they used to be.