Slashdot Mirror
Battery Advance Could Lead To a Cleaner Way To Store Energy
sciencehabit writes: With the continuing rise of solar and wind power, the hunt is on for cheap batteries that are able to store large amounts of energy and deliver it when it's dark and the wind is still. Last year researchers reported an advance on one potentially cheap, energy-packing battery. But it required toxic and caustic materials. Now, the same team has revised its chemistry, doing away with the noxious constituents—an advance that could make future such batteries far cheaper and simpler to build.
When is it ever dark and windless at the same time across the USA? It happens about as often as EVERY SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR is offline at the same time. Yet we don't bang on and on about how we need backup generation for nuclear (we do, about a third over capacity to get to 90%+ capacity factor), nor how we need a huge amount of fast generation to handle unexpected outages until some larger and slower (and cheaper) generator can get up to speed.
NOTE: coal power has this problem too, along with needing a continued resupply of resources to continue operating giving another option for failure.
We have blackouts because cheapskates running the power industry don't want to spend for proper backup and capacity planning with our nuclear/coal/oil/gas infrastructure. IT IS A GOOD THING that we're insisting on having that done for renewables. But I can't help feeling this is just a way to make sure that power utilities can keep their old infrastructure going (which has already sunk the cost of building, so is in high profit mode) and also hike prices for renewables roll out (making them hugely profitable, since it's getting cheaper by the day and already comparable or cheaper than current generation fossil fuel plants). Whether they'll ACTUALLY spend the money doing this proper backup I seriously doubt. I believe that this is entirely a "reason" to not roll out renewables and mothball the highly profitable sunk capital infrastructure. "Oh, we have to wait until we get this new battery!" Of course, NEW fossil fuel (and nuclear) builds will go ahead and even be shoehorned past state or local objection under the alarmist guise of "We NEED this generation because we closed the old plants!", whereas what they SHOULD do is build out any replacement of closed generation with renewables.
However, the meme of "When it's dark and windless" is a shibboleth and bogeyman to stop or at least slow take-up of renewables (or demonise those who do it privately). It pretends that we ONLY use solar PV, pretends that "not even half of expected average" is "windless" and we only use wind. And entirely ignores tidal, hydro, biomass, geothermal, wave and solar thermal. Or that we can build up to 200-400% capacity for the same price as nuclear replacement (when ignoring the need for 1/3rd more nuclear because of downtime). The higher figure would be putting it all where it does the most good, not the most convenient or profitable per-acre.
When we have 100% renewable infrastructure, THEN we can go carefully and without haste into the new generator types for nuclear and find the best and most secure way of using nuclear without the rush of replacing coal. When we know we have a solution we can retire the overcapacity on renewables and replace what we know we need with reliable and safe nuclear.
A nuclear power we could use in space travel or on extra-terrestrial bases, where renewables would be untenable for obvious reasons.
Which will come first: the widespread commercial availability of this battery technology, or the Year of Linux on the Desktop?
Could to something else and something else!!
Also serve some Dicevertisements and auto playing shampoo commercials while we're at it*
Maybe I'm missing the point because I'm just a layman for this, but if NOT using the toxic components makes the batteries cheaper and simpler to produce ... why were they using the toxic components in the first place?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Flow battery stores the energy in electrolytes in external tanks. Thus at some point we could have gas stations dispensing "charged" electrolytes making way for very rapid recharging.
As usual for any battery technology it works in the lab and the product is X+10 years away, where X is the current year.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Flow batteries aren't news, yet the words "flow battery" appear nowhere in the summary. This is an article about a flow battery. If you were expecting something new, this article isn't about that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem with using dams is that most dams also have rivers coming in and rivers going out. In certain times of the year the reservoir is full and there is no ability to store more water. Other times of the year there might be enough excess electricity to pump most of the outflow water back up. That can lead to wide variations in flow downstream. Very low flow at time when electricity is stored and much higher flow when electricity is being generated. This can cause major fish kills, municipal water issues and irrigation water shortages downstream. A hydo dam already has enough trouble balancing storage, production and outflow without dealing with pumped storage.
Pumped storage works best between two reservoirs but the the number of places where the geography allows enough drop and water availability allows enough water to replace evaporation/seepage are limited.
I fully agree.
Does anyone know do flow batteries hold their charge well?
Depends on what the materials are. But unless the materials are inherently unstrable their separation into different storage tanks results in extremely low self-discharge. Very handy if you want to store utility-peaking levels of energy for months.
A more telling point is whether any leakage through the membrane to the other side degrades or poisons the reaction.
The latter is one reason Vanadium Redox flow batteries are so great. The simple compounds on each side of the membrane are the same (except for the oxidation state of the vanadium, and thus the number of its partners, such as oxygen atoms, it's associated with). As a result, any electrolyte that leaks into the wrong half-cell is quickly converted to that half-cell's electrolyte type. A little energy is lost "charging" it to the right oxidation state, but the battery is not poisoned. Unlike the one in the article.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You underestimate the value of boring solutions. There's always this hope that high tech is going to save us but if you want to reduce the carbon footprint, the best place to start would probably be to isolate the house as much as possible and get a high yield gas furnace. And get a small low power car instead of a big one. These are boring low tech solutions but they make a large difference. It's hard to find hightech solutions with the same impact.
Electric cars right now are in an odd place - the initial capital outlay is way beyond my budget but the monthly cost over their lifetime so enormously cheaper (both in fuel and maintenance costs) that if I could get one today I would be significantly wealthier in my monthly budget. Of course if I get it on credit the payments would probably dwarf the difference.
The thing is though - that initial high capital outlay is primarily a factor of production scales rather than cost of materials - the potential cost at which they could be made is at least an order of magnitude cheaper.
Right now - a Tessla Model S would cost me around R1.2 million - but a huge chunk of that is the cost of custom shipping an import, so as soon as they are actually for sale here by a large scale importer, you cut that at least in half. That puts it on par with a new upper-end BMW. Give it a couple of years to ramp up production I strongly suspect I'll be able to get a Tessla-like car for the same amount I paid for my 6-year old A3, which I've added 5 good years to since then.
At the point, there is no sane reason to buy a fossil-fuel car, it simply cannot compete.
Now granted, I despise long-distance driving and avoid it like the plague, anything over 100km and I prefer to fly - which for anything under 4 people is cheaper anyway, so I'm not factoring that in - my daily commute is 99% of my driving needs, and electrical would be so much more ideal for that purpose. For the other 0.1% - I can hire a car fit for that purpose.
The problem with your assessment is, I'm also 99% of the world's drivers.
And don't come with America has long roads and cities far appart... I live in Africa dude, you aint seen nothing yet.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You forgot one. A totally regulated, top-down society is nirvana.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
At the point, there is no sane reason to buy a fossil-fuel car, it simply cannot compete.
Actually that statement isn't true, but I see it written all the time by people sitting in front of their keyboards assuming that all driving is like theirs. :)
*shh* don't tell Tesla...they seem to be doing well...
And LED lights are low tech *eye roll*
Your big problem with driving electric in Africa is going to be the fueling infrastructure. The whole reason that electric in the US has an upper-class image is that right now, only wealthier neighborhoods have charging stations. Electric cars will get cheap long before it becomes practical to drive them everywhere.
Power Over Ethernet?
"shh" don't tell the investors but Tesla still has not made a profit in four years. Last year they built 35,00 cars and lost US$294.0 million. That is $8,400 per car.
"shh" don't tell the investors but Tesla still has not made a profit in four years. Last year they built 35,00 cars and lost US$294.0 million. That is $8,400 per car.
Let's give the investors a little credit, shall we, and assume that they know the difference between losing money and investing money? Because Tesla's the money you think Tesla is "losing" is actually being pumped into scaling up their operations (Gigafactory, additional assembly lines, Supercharger network, etc). Hence the high stock valuation -- lots of people (many of whom are smarter than you or I) are betting that they have a bright future.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
They are. LED lights are still working on the same principle as fluorescent lights which we know is old as most of us on here.
Would this be effective for large UPS batteries in data centers? The current lead calcium acid batteries we use are expensive, heavy, and need to be replaced every few years. It would be interesting if we could replace the membrane and pump in some new fluid.
The issue is that people don't want to pay more for the option that will give less. I can buy a car that gives me more cargo space, allows me to tow and has more range and my cost of purchase + maintenance + fuel won't exceed the cost of a decent EV until the car is 10 years old.
Add to this the uncertainty of new technology and you've got a car that is difficult to sell.
With Tesla offering a more affordable vehicle in the coming years and Apple possibly joining the fight in 2019, I think the future of EV is very promising.
My 2 cents.
The whole reason that electric in the US has an upper-class image is that right now, only wealthier neighborhoods have charging stations
That's not true. The reason Tesla targeted the wealthy is because they knew they could afford to take a risk on new technology while enjoying the look and feel of high end luxury cars.
Electric cars will get cheap long before it becomes practical to drive them everywhere.
Depends what you mean by practical? Currently most EVs are perfectly fine for 99% of peoples driving.
Well see, that's the problem with the future, it never gets here.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The problem is determining the optimum sweet spot somewhere between the two. We have a feedback system in place to try and regulate it, but the response rate isn't fast enough. So our legislators are trying to fix it by campaigning continuously.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Just don't let your electric car get cold, or that 250 mile advertised range won't move you 50 miles.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
distinguish between:
1. investing money and losing money
2. heavily amortized costs (R & D, building a factory) vs. per-unit costs
How the world works will always be a mystery to people like you. You are doomed to witness many companies in your life go [seemingly overnight] from "losing $8400 per unit" to "raking in billions of dollars in profit". Let me try to put it into terms your tiny little brain can understand:
For essentially every single product in history there has been some point in its early production when it was "losing $8400 per unit". The Ford Model T, the Sony Walkman, the iPod, the VCR, all of them. And some idiot pointed it out each time. And then everyone with a brain yawned and ignored them.
Yawn.
It would be difficult to get the politicians to agree on policies.
As a grid gets larger, and more complex, it becomes harder to manage. There's an increasing (though still remote) risk of a cascade failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003
I'm talking about electric car tech as a whole, not that early-adopter wonder, the Tesla. Electric motors can make the automobile simpler and cheaper by replacing the maze of mechanics that IC involves. It will be the same revolution that the jet engine brought to aviation.
But while there are already a number of low-end electric cars out there that are designed for the urban commuter market, adoption is being held up by the lack of charging stations.
I never see flywheels discussed in this context. I don't understand why not, though.
No need for exotic compounds, sky-high efficiency. They don't have to be replaced every three years.
There must be a reason people keep dismissing them out of hand...does here anyone know what the reason is?
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
Do not misunderstand me, I totally see a future in EV cars.
Will they totally replace gas cars? Not for a long time, if ever, but they will grow slowly to be an ever larger share of the market.
It isn't just price, humans are emotional creatures and range anxiety is an issue and won't be easily overcome.
Yes, I'm well aware that most people don't need a vehicle with tons of range, but the edge cases are not so rare as to be swept under the rug either.
EVs largely need to be second vehicles for the time being, and you largely need a garage in most situations to make use of one. That cuts out at least half the market right there. Fear, "new", change, expensive, etc. all cut out more.
Which explains why plug in EVs were a rounding error in vehicle sales last year, about 1% of the market, give or take a bit. It will go up, but not at the pace the news seems to make it seem. I'd expect it to be around 5% of the market in 10 years, depending largely on how well the Model 3 plans work out.
A "troll" is something you just made up to make people angry. But I truly believe that the anonymous coward who left that stupid comment has poor reading comprehension skills. If you think I'm trolling here, you're a pathetic idiot.
The Slashdot moderation system is broken by design if it lets mental midgets like you have modpoints.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think LEDs are high tech with a big impact, eye roll man.
Tesla. Electric motors can make the automobile simpler and cheaper by replacing the maze of mechanics that IC involves
Yes, at the end of the day EVs will be cheaper to make. Tesla has yet to yield a profit due to it's high cost of R&D. This will obviously go away with time.
low-end electric cars out there that are designed for the urban commuter market, adoption is being held up by the lack of charging stations
Low end electric cars are still close to double the cost of their equivalent combustion equivalent. As for charging stations they aren't a problem for most because they can charge at home between daily commutes. Even the Tesla owners I know have 3 vehicles but say they could get away with 2 by planning a little better.
Yup. Totally agree -- but most US households have two cars, one which gets much more use than the other since it's used on weekends, family trips, etc.
At some point, we'll likely swap out one of our cars for an EV. We'll keep the 4Runner for the towing, 4-wheeling, hunting, camping stuff and for the 5 mile commute in to work for me everyday. My wife will have the EV for her longer commute, and we'll solely use that for family trips that don't require 4-wheeling/towing and all weekend errands and driving. Probably cut our gas consumption by ~80% and save us money since at that point (~3 years from now), it'll likely be comparably priced in the market to similar gas-only cars.
Will they totally replace gas cars? Not for a long time
Define long time. If you answer 15 years I'll agree that EVs won't have taken over yet. If you say 30 years, I'll answer that you're probably wrong. In 30 years EVs will probably account for over 50% of cars (Trucks and heavy duty applications are different IMO). Currently EVs (includes Hybrids) for 3.5% of vehicles.
There is an argument against my way of thinking. The gas prices do not help motivate consumers to go EV. On the flip side, regulations are pushing companies towards EVs. Self driving cars which to date point to EVs may be the added perk required to convince many.
I don't count hybrids in the EV dept unless they are plug in, have decent all electric range, and are really meant to be EV 90% of the time.
Chevy Volt is an EV in my book, since it is really meant to be EV. The standard Prius is not, since it is meant to be EV only very limited.
The single biggest challenge beyond cost for EVs is range. I think the cost issue is easier to solve than the range issue. Larger battery factories will only bring that cost down over time. Range however is the part that will hold them back. I can fill up 500 miles of range in 5-10 min in my truck. The challenges of giving me 500 miles of range via battery is much greater.
I'm not saying it isn't solvable, I'm saying it will take far more time to solve and I'm not convinced that a great number of people care that much.
Also, the 50% EV car number that you think we'll hit in 30 years runs into a snag when you consider all the non-homeowners who don't have a garage to put charging equipment into. All the single family homes, etc.
Would I be willing, given similar cost, to have my second vehicle be EV tomorrow? Sure. Would I be willing, regardless of price, to replace my primary vehicle with an EV? No. I need the ability to refuel in 5-10 min. The charging times for EVs are not acceptable. That might change, but not for awhile.
And of course, we don't really have a full size EV SUV, making it a moot point. What do you think the cost of a Yukon XL Denali EV with 500 miles of range would cost today? If I had to guess... $250k...
Not even in the realm of reason... :)
Not all. Many use colour combination to produce white (or whiteish light) no fluorescent coatings/layers needed.
They hurt the eyes and wild life. I hope something will replace them with better spectrum.
An electric car is likely to have 4-wheel-drive and high torque, too :)
In my urban and peripheral urban area, the vast majority of people with cars seem to have them parked outside (in inner town you have underground parking lots. But not much room for traffic)
In suburb-like areas, you have a mix of parked outside, and in the very small property but outside.
Some residential places have unpowered garages : contiguous sheds to store a car and/or crap, thus with no electrical power.
I'm sure there's many thousands homes with a garage but for the masses that are working class and/or rent there's not much of an option.
Bringing an electrical bicycle or its battery inside would be much easier.
Maybe the roads are poor or non existent and not that straight. It could be a tiring three hour drive in a guzzling 4WD, crossing mud, fallen trees etc. whereas a small plane hops to a yellow grass airfield and that's it.
In the first world we can't afford to hire a pilot, but we can do a one hour drive at constant speed on an amazingly flat road, or in some case take a train (100km can be rather quick and cheap). We have some things amazingly cheaper than in most of Africa (water, transportation, internet)
At some point, we'll likely swap out one of our cars for an EV
Absolutely. The only thing is the price of the EV makes it that (EV + energy savings) (Car + cost of fuel + Maintenance) so what motivates most to do it unless you are making a conscious decision to help the world at a superior cost?
For the most part we appear to have the same view of EVs and their future.
Would I be willing, given similar cost, to have my second vehicle be EV tomorrow? Sure. Would I be willing, regardless of price, to replace my primary vehicle with an EV? No. I need the ability to refuel in 5-10 min. The charging times for EVs are not acceptable. That might change, but not for awhile
Look at this link about charging Tesla Roadster: http://my.teslamotors.com/road...
The new Tesla's have built-in charging stations that run on 110 and 240. The 110v will charge about 5 miles per hour and the 240v will do about 32 miles/hr. If EVs pickup within the next 10 years the infrastructure will change quickly as a result of demand. At this point it's all speculation but it's also not far fetched.
So if most families get an EV within 30 years we have close to 50% EV adoption. By then I would assume cost would be lower and options not as limited.
Tesla Superchargers provide 170 miles of range in as little as 30 minutes.
http://www.teslamotors.com/sup...
That is indeed an improvement... of course it takes a $100k car to get there. :) (yea, I know, the base model is less, but who buys those?)
170 miles takes as little as 2 hours to drive, depending on where you're at. Then 30 min to charge, not counting stop/start time.
It is getting there, but that isn't it yet. Now if they can get 170 miles of range down to 15 min, and do it in a $35K Model 3, now that'll be much more interesting...
So if most families get an EV within 30 years we have close to 50% EV adoption.
It would bring adoption close to 50%, for families with 2 or more vehicles... but that leaves out all the single vehicle households or the households who have a need for 2 longer range vehicles, or who have 3 or more vehicles in the house.
EVs might be 10% of new vehicle sales in 30 years, only time will tell there. But I think the objections of the buying public won't be so easily overcome, regardless of technical solutions. There are a whole lot of people who wouldn't buy an EV tomorrow, even if it was the same price as the gas car, simply due to "fear, change, new, unknown, etc."
That will, to some extent, take a generation shift to overcome.
170 miles takes as little as 2 hours to drive, depending on where you're at. Then 30 min to charge, not counting stop/start time.
That's correct. It doesn't replace both vehicle but at the right price definitely gets you to replace 1 of the 2.
I think it was Tesla that showed a 2 minute battery swapping system. That's a more viable option for extending range if it works properly and is costed properly. Otherwise we are back to square 1.
It would bring adoption close to 50%, for families with 2 or more vehicles... but that leaves out all the single vehicle households or the households who have a need for 2 longer range vehicles, or who have 3 or more vehicles in the house.
GM had suggested providing a discount system for car rentals for EV owners so they could easily arrange a car swap should they require long range. I personally don't drive over 100 miles per day anymore so something like that would make sense for a guy like me.
EVs might be 10% of new vehicle sales in 30 years
It just takes a good product at a good price to easily shift it from 10% to 30%+. Technology advancements will dictate that.
That will, to some extent, take a generation shift to overcome
I think people that are over 50 are less prone to buying EVs but I believe the current generation (30-40) is very much interested in this tech. At least that's the feeling I get from talking EVs with friends and family.
Thanks for the fair and reasonable replies. I wish more people here replied that way.
You're correct of course, it takes only a shift in technology or price to change things. Could EV sales be 30% in 30 years? Yes, they could. It would take a shift, but such things have happened before.
It will be interesting to watch, that is for sure.
I agree. Many people here aren't here to discuss the topic but instead force their way of thinking the same way some politicians do. People with strong beliefs aren't open to new options and that is why we have real issues that aren't going away. Hopefully people like us can change the world for the better.
For what it is worth, I do try and listen. My replacement of all my bulbs in my house with LED is directly related to a post on SlashDot. Someone took the time to explain it using non-harsh words and posted the math of the payback and energy used.
I read it and a lightbulb went off in my head (pun intended).
Within a month I had them all replaced.
I'm open and willing to listen to other points of view, if presented in a reasonable way that doesn't involve something rammed down my throat.
It is possible that I'm guilty of that from time to time, words on a web forum don't convey context or tone, what one person takes harshly was intended lightheartly, and so on.
---
I'm not against the concept of EVs, I'm against what the Model S is today being the future of EVs. The Model 3 might be it, if it really does launch in 2 years, it really does have 200 miles of range, and it really does cost $35K before any credits or rebates, then I'll give it a look.
It may still not be right for me then, but if they can build that, then they could build a pickup truck version for $55K with similar range I'd think, and I would imagine they would sell some of those too.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. :)
It is possible that I'm guilty of that from time to time, words on a web forum don't convey context or tone, what one person takes harshly was intended lightheartly, and so on.
The two things that bother me the most on /. are:
- People who insult you because you don't agree with them. I simply shut them down at that point
- People who put words in your mouth or take a sentence out of content to either nullify your argument to create a tangent in the discussion
I'm sure you've met those people. I could probably name a few off top my head. :)