Slashdot Mirror
New "Super Battery" Energy Storage Breakthrough Aims At $54 Per KWh (cleantechnica.com)
mdsolar writes: BioSolar and the University of California, Santa Barbara, reinforced a previous international patent application by jointly filing applications in the U.S., Canada and Japan for something called a "multicomponent-approach to enhance stability and capacitance in polymer-hybrid supercapacitors." The BioSolar energy storage approach solves two core problems of conventional lithium-ion battery technology. One is the cost of materials, and the other is the limited capacity of the cathode compared to the anode. BioSolar has solved the cost and capacity problem by developing an inexpensive polymer for the cathode. "Our novel high capacity cathode is engineered from a polymer, similar to that of low-cost plastics used in the household. Through a smart chemical design, we are able to make the polymer hold an enormous amount of electrons. The estimated raw materials cost of our cathode is similar to that of inexpensive plastics, with a very high possible energy density of 1,000 Wh/kg." BioSolar's research also indicates that the new polymer enables batteries to charge and discharge rapidly while far outlasting the lifecycle of conventional lithium-ion energy storage. According to the company, conventional batteries drop down to 80 percent of their storage capacity after 1,000 charge/discharge cycles. When the new polymer is used in a supercapacitor, BioSolar's lab work has demonstrated a lifespan of 50,000 cycles without degradation.
When we combine that with fusion solar beamed to the ground from space our energy problems should be essentially solved. I wouldn't want to be an oil company right now.
Wake me up when that happens. I'll bet it will be the same year we have a commercial fusion reactor. Only 20 years away!
Wake me up when they have batteries actually built and selling at that price point. Until then it's just bluster: there's no way to know what industrial challenges will creep in and drive the price up.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Yet another battery breakthrough article for what is essentially a lab demo. While I have not particular knowledge of whether or not this technology is manufacturable, it seems like an awful lot of battery breakthroughs don't really pan out once it comes to building them in to actual products.
As usual they "created" a battery on paper. After testing this 'amazing' polymer anode, they claim, combined with graphite cathode a magical-battery could be plausible. Nothing to see here folks its just vaporware. This is just more bull to keep their gravy train going. If they wanted real information they could simply have added the graphite cathode and published real world performance.
Through a smart chemical design, ...
So relieved to hear they didn't use a dumb chemical design. /pedantic
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Ok, so what's the deal with this 'battery breakthrough'. Is it a lie? I ask the provocative question because I've heard a *lot* of "battery breakthrough" stories (they are almost as common as solar panel breakthroughs), and yet ....new batteries that store gobs of power? Example: a few years ago, there was a 'super battery breakthrough' here, that is supposed to be a wildly better way to manufacture batteries where the cathode is so much better than before. And if you note the date of the article, its more than a couple of years ago. And super cheap, super powerful batteries sure look like the batteries you bought in 1970. And either the whole thing is a dud, or someone came along, bought the technology, and is sitting on it. Now it could be argued that either of those is possible, but certainly the net effect is either of those. Now we get another story about 'super battery technology' that promises blah blah. So what are the odds that in 5 years your batteries will look exactly like the ones you have now? I think pretty darn good.
The same big names will provide clean and renewable energy in the future.
Maybe not. If batteries are cheap, and solar panels are cheap, then I can just have my own batteries and panels. So why do I need to buy energy from a "big company"? In my neighborhood, I already see dozens of houses with solar panels. Imagine how many will have them when they actually make sense!
>And what does "fusion solar" even mean?
Fusion solar makes a sound like this: "whooosh".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Another day, another "breakthrough in energy storage tech" vapourware article.
"BioSolar's research also indicates that the new polymer enables batteries to charge and discharge rapidly while far outlasting the lifecycle of conventional lithium-ion energy storage."
Can these batteries recharge at a rate comparable to refilling my truck with gasoline? I doubt it. I can refill my truck in about five minutes, there is no way a battery can transfer that kind of energy in that amount of time, even if we account for the poor efficiency of an ICE to the high efficiency BEV and adjust energy needed accordingly.
What really holds back electric vehicles is not just the limited range alone but the recharge rate. If I can recharge a BEV at the same rate I can refill my dinosaur burning truck then I would not have a problem with them. A five minute stop every so often on a road trip is usually not an issue for people, people typically have to stop anyway for biological reasons. A four hour stop, or even a 30 minute stop, can be a problem for people.
Assuming we can find a battery that can take a charge comparable to the energy transfer of a roadside gasoline pump the problem then becomes creating a system to move that many electrons safely on something that must move down a road.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Except the 50,000 cycle number is for supercapacitors, which suffer none of the chemical reactions that cause breakdown in chemical batteries. I can't think of any reason it would even be mentioned except for intentional deception by implication.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I really hope that this is not one of those things where they have a tiny postage stamp sized things freshly pulled from a beaker that can power an LED. Keep in mind that I can stuff some metal wires into a lemon and power an LED.
I want to see a demonstration unit that is doing something where I can calculate the power output. So a 5 KG battery boiling from room temperature a known amount of water. That is something where the energy efficiency is fairly high and the physics are boringly hard to fake.
I am sick of these battery breakthroughs not having any "proof" I am OK with a 10 minute video that shows one of their batteries doing something such as the boiling water thing sped up with a clock in the background. In fact I am far more interested in that than some MBA wannabe just sitting in a chair talking about how this technology will make people immortal on Mars.
But 5 minutes of blah blah, with 10 seconds in a lab showing some unknown motor or bulb running for a few seconds is not proof, it is nothing. Again, I can do stuff with a lemon. What will not happen is a few more developments that lets me drive a Tesla with that lemon.
If a supercapacitor has an internal discharge rate of 1% per hour, can it be called a practical battery?
As of today, you can get at least 2800mAH in a single AA rechargeable NiMH battery. Back in the olden days a nickel cadmium AA might of had 400mAH.
You don't SEE battery advances. The battery form-factors rarely change. They just get denser (more energy), faster (charging) and cheaper.
Many rechargeable batteries can get to 80% in a very short period of time (minutes).
I think many people forget how long it used to take to charge phones and other devices. Hours. Overnight. Not minutes.
First, do the people talking about the science get their units right? Forget mixing imperial and metric, do the words and the measurements match up at all?
Energy density is energy per volume. Wh/gal, Wh/L, MJ/L, or something like that.
Specific energy is energy per weight. Wh/lb, Wh/kg, MJ/kg, or something like that.
They're reporting an "energy density" with units of "specific energy." Are they doing their comparisons well if they don't understan what they're looking at? Have they done the measurement properly?
Maybe this is a great invention, but this wasn't ready for publication or press release.