Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solid-State Battery Could Extinguish Fire Risks (thestack.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the in-case-of-emergency-break-glass dept.

An anonymous reader writes: "Researchers have designed a new type of battery that, unlike traditional models containing liquid or gel electrolytes, consists purely of solid chemical compounds and is non-flammable, representing a huge boost for improving battery safety," reports The Stack. "Responding to dangers linked to traditional lithium-ion batteries, the team based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, has built a solid alternative which contains only solid-state electrodes and electrolytes." The battery is constructed with a layer of highly conductive lithium garnet, which works as a solid electrolyte between two electrodes. The researchers applied the material of the negative pole in viscous form, which allowed it to seep through the porous electrolyte layer. The team was able to temper the battery at 100C. "With a liquid or gel electrolyte, it would never be possible to heat a battery to such high temperatures," the study claims.

53 comments

  1. Paper link by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because I had to click through three pages to get to the actual source:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

    1. Re:Paper link by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Was the second link added after your post? It goes to the same spot you linked.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Paper link by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      .... I think it was? But now I'm second-guessing myself.

  2. My forecast by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This will come to nothing. In a few months time, it will have been forgotten. Who wants to bet against me?

    1. Re:My forecast by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Bet about what?

    2. Re:My forecast by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You may well be right. "Lithium Garnet" sounds a bit expensive to make. So it may be reserved for specialty applications.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:My forecast by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      Buhu look at me, I dont get everything now (and cheap) buhu

  3. Solid state battery by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

    I was using Catalyst Research Lithium Iodide cells in 1984.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Solid state battery by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      They're pretty obscure, you probably haven't heard of them.

    2. Re:Solid state battery by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Not anymore, now we have suddenly created a peak in the search for that technology.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Solid state battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't count unless it is new. Nothing old matters. You'll get used to it.

    4. Re:Solid state battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the millennial!

  4. Energy density? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless I'm missing something they were a little vague as to the energy density of this battery technology. The one detail they did appear to provide is that the batteries only function decently at over 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Unless they're dirt cheap or can make some major leaps in their specs I don't think we'll be seeing this technology in any real use for a while.

    1. Re:Energy density? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      This answers my instant question of whether they'd be viable or not...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re: Energy density? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can always get them to operating temperature by setting them on fire ... Oh, wait ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Energy density? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      the batteries only function decently at over 200 degrees Fahrenheit.

      showcasing the difference between "won't catch fire" and "won't catch other things on fire".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Energy density? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article:

      Afyon suggested that this capability could be applied in battery storage power plants: ‘Today, the waste heat that results from many industrial processes vanishes unused By coupling battery power plants with industrial facilities, you could use the waste heat to operate the storage power plant at optimal temperatures,’ he said.

      Consider a scenario where Fukushima would have had batteries like this as a backup instead of diesel generators.
      It's not like nuclear power plants doesn't have plenty of excess temperature.

      200 degrees F is easy to get to and not warm enough to cause fires.
      I wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty of places where you can't use batteries today because of safety issues. In those places these batteries wouldn't compete with current batteries. They would compete with not having anything at all.

    5. Re:Energy density? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It's on the obscure Fahrenheit scale, so it's still below the boiling point for water. Unless it comes into contact with some highly volatile stuff it won't be a fire hazard, just uncomfortable to touch. Unless you are a finn and runs into that temperature on a daily basis in the sauna.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:Energy density? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TIL: everything below the boiling point of water is merely 'uncomfortable to touch' :D

    7. Re:Energy density? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "where Fukushima"

      Having battery backup onsite at Fukushima alone wouldn't have done a thing, especially a battery backup that would have relied on the plant to be in operation to function for any length of time. They HAD functional backup generators onsite after the tsunami, an earlier study had recognized the fact that their main generators were in a flood zone so they built another set of generators up the hill overlooking the plant. Unfortunately due to some inept designers they left all of the electrical control hardware in the basement where the primary backup generators were so when the floodwaters took out the primary generators they also fried all of the power transfer equipment. I agree that if its extremely cheap and has a half way decent energy density it might make for a good grid storage system, but as an emergency backup it would be less than stellar.

    8. Re:Energy density? by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 1

      The energy density per se depends mostly on the electrode materials used. This battery uses conventional electrode materials, so in principle it can achieve the usual energy density of Li-ion cells.

      The cells use Li4TI5O12 at the negative electrode, which means that they most likely operate at a lower nominal voltage than traditional Li-ion cells (somewhere around 3V as opposed to >4V), however since the electrodes can be made much more dense (because the liquid electrolyte does not need to penetrate in the electrode and therefore the empty porous space in the electrode is not necessary), overall the energy density of the electrode (capacity times voltage) remains the same.

      The main advantage of solid state cells comes from the fact that the electrolyte layer, in principle, can be made much thinner than the usual ~20 microns required by the traditional polymeric separators. However, manufacturing such thin layers of purely ceramic materials is not easy, and I don't think (cannot access the paper right now) that the cell shown in the paper has any advancement in that respect. I think the best example of thin, ceramic, Li conducting layers are those made by Ohara in Japan.

      So overall an interesting technological step, but no breakthrough.

    9. Re:Energy density? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The one detail they did appear to provide is that the batteries only function decently at over 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Unless they're dirt cheap or can make some major leaps in their specs I don't think we'll be seeing this technology in any real use for a while.

      High temperature batteries won't be found in portable consumer devices and should be kept well clear of public cargo where any safety issues are intolerable.

      If the cost, energy density, lifetime, and energy efficiency are good enough, they might hold promise for energy storage to time-shift output of wind and solar installations.

      Sodium-Sulfur batteries use very high temperatures, and corrosive material but otherwise have very exciting characteristics for larger applications. The materials are readily available and very cheap, efficiency is very high, they have a long lifetime, and they're less toxic than lithium-ion.
      I'm not sure if they can be made viable for a car or a single residence, but they are suitable for a variety of commercial, institutional and utility-scale settings. Most battery types are far too expensive to have appeal for utility-scale storage. The total per kilowatt-hour cost of energy production and storage has to be competitive with polluting or otherwise dangerous alternatives.
      Pilot projects have already been done at the tens of megawatt level.

      There should be more public discussion of the economics of battery replacement and recycling issues for both cars and residential storage. The solar installers aren't saying much. While some will settle for costly smaller storage just to be off-grid at night (or be able to drive without gas), great progress is needed to make that cost per kwh attractive over the whole operating life of the batteries.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  5. Yes! That's it! Finally the magic battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we have the amazing super-battery! Elon, you can close the doors of your so-called "GigaFactory".

    This is the one!

  6. I am sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anything tiny that stores a couple of amp hours is going to do violent things when shorted out.

    1. Re:I am sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really depends on the internal resistance. You can hook most LEDs up to most coin cell batteries without a resistor, because the battery is simply incapable of sourcing more than the 20-odd mA that an LED will draw, because their internal resistance is pretty high.

      I agree with you though that most things capable of delivering a couple of amps worth of current is going to be interesting when shorted out.

    2. Re:I am sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real risk, though, is of a short induced by, e.g. a puncture. You drive a nail through the thing, and you're going to reduce its internal resistance.

  7. Is it DIGITAL READY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if not then it is not suitable for these times in which we all live and work and play.

  8. FBI should know solid state means no moving parts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your battery is running away just call the FBI.

    dumbfucks.

  9. Re:FBI should know solid state means no moving par by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Solid state, which means that it's not liquid, gas or vacuum state.

    But vacuum state has a tendency to produce a nice comfortably glow when operating.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  10. Fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Responding to dangers linked to traditional lithium-ion batteries,"

    This should read:

    "Responding to dangers linked to the misuse and abuse of traditional lithium-ion batteries,"

    Lithium batteries are not inherently dangerous. They only become dangerous if misused (which can also be said of most anything).

    1. Re:Fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can become dangerous if misused *or* if a flaw was introduced during production.

    2. Re:Fearmongering by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Lithium batteries are not inherently dangerous"

      Open it up and lick it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Fearmongering by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      So, it's "inherently dangerous" unless I'm willing to open it up and lick it? By that standard, the ceramic batteries you mentioned below are also "inherently dangerous". For that matter, so is their inventor.

    4. Re:Fearmongering by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Do you not know what inherent means?

      "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."

      It's still lithium. There is still an inherent danger.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:Fearmongering by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but ever since reading about a developer who was across the room while his laptop exploded while charging *I've* considered them dangerous. If you want to say that charging your laptop is "misuse or abuse", then I have to think you are asserting the batteries are worthless.

      Some people have said "There must have been a manufacturing defect.". This is a reasonable hypothesis, but since as a user I have no way of detecting such a defect that doesn't remove them from the dangerous category.

      To say the battery exploding is a low probability event is something I could accept without problem, but that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, just that they aren't *likely* to cause damage...and I have no good way of estimating the probability. For some reason manufacturers are pretty quiet about this, and how much could you trust what they say anyway in a case like this. Admitting possible culpability would put them squarely in the sites of lots of fire insurance companies.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Could? Or does? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    If they have made this battery you know. Does it or doesn't it?

  12. Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are welcome

  13. Re:Your momma never was a fire risk by erapert · · Score: 1

    Needs more polish. Work on it then get back to us.

  14. Super Soaker Inventor Has Better by Khyber · · Score: 2

    This tech is much, much more promising than what Sweden is working on. It also has the benefit of being made by someone with a history of actually bringing products to market, as well as said person having been a NASA engineer.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Super Soaker Inventor Has Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Minor correction:

      This tech is much, much more promising than what Switzerland is working on.

  15. Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you releasing the software? Selling it? Doing anything other than working with/on it? If you said no to all three questions, then you are an idiot. No need to release source code for GPL software that's not released to the public.

  16. Erm what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of liquid or gel electrolyte is in a lipo battery?

  17. Re: FBI should know solid state means no moving pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vacuum isn't a state of matter. The word you're looking for (associated with tubes) is plasma.

  18. How about a battery that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a battery that runs off battery breakthrough stories? Energy crisis solved right there.

  19. Yet another 'Venture Vulture'(tm) battery story by xtronics · · Score: 1

    They obviously are looking for gullible investors..

  20. On one hand; on the other by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Good: batteries that won't catch fire.

    Bad (but possibly good): batteries outgas lysergic acid during operation.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  21. Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft by HiThere · · Score: 1

    He's an idiot anyway. The GPL would only require the release of his code if he was trying to "steal" someone else's code.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  22. Non-flamable lithium? by Cramer · · Score: 1

    The issue is not one of liquid or gel construction -- which is an issue, to be sure... leaks, evaporation, boiling, etc. The issue with such technology is spelled:
            L-I-T-H-I-U-M.

    Lithium based batteries react rather poorly to being exposed to the atmosphere. Unless they've created a non-reactive lithium electrolyte, there's really nothing new here. (hint: that's not new, either.) So they've brought "AGM" to li-po technology.

  23. What do bombs and batteries have in common? by allo · · Score: 1

    They try to store as much energy as possible at least space as possible.

    That's the problem, why batteries are always dangerous. There is just a lot of stored energy in there. For example enough to start a fire or to explode.