Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Make a High-Performance Battery From Junkyard Scraps (vanderbilt.edu)
Science_afficionado writes: A team of engineers and materials scientists at Vanderbilt University have discovered how to make high-performance batteries using scraps of metal from the junkyard and common household chemicals. The researchers believe their innovation could provide the large amounts of economical electrical storage required by the grid to handle alternative energy sources and may ultimately allow homeowners to build their own batteries and disconnect entirely from the grid. Vanderbilt University News reports: "To make such a future possible, Pint headed a research team that used scraps of steel and brass -- two of the most commonly discarded materials -- to create the world's first steel-brass battery that can store energy at levels comparable to lead-acid batteries while charging and discharging at rates comparable to ultra-fast charging supercapacitors. The research team, which consists of graduates and undergraduates in Vanderbilt's interdisciplinary materials science program and department of mechanical engineering, describe this achievement in a paper titled 'From the Junkyard to the Power Grid: Ambient Processing of Scrap Metals into Nanostructured Electrodes for Ultrafast Rechargeable Batteries' published online this week in the journal ACS Energy Letters. The secret to unlocking this performance is anodization, a common chemical treatment used to give aluminum a durable and decorative finish. When scraps of steel and brass are anodized using a common household chemical and residential electrical current, the researchers found that the metal surfaces are restructured into nanometer-sized networks of metal oxide that can store and release energy when reacting with a water-based liquid electrolyte. The team determined that these nanometer domains explain the fast charging behavior that they observed, as well as the battery's exceptional stability. They tested it for 5,000 consecutive charging cycles -- the equivalent of over 13 years of daily charging and discharging -- and found that it retained more than 90 percent of its capacity."
If we find the Mark Wayne McGinnis scrapyard se would be set.
Those fuckers are always getting the latest and greatest stuff.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Maybe in 1985, when plutonium is available in every corner drug store, but in 2016, it's a little hard to come by.
MacGyver would have figured this out ages ago.
It seems the "scrap" element was just added as "junk science" clickbait. The fact that one source of metals is from recycling - well that's what metal recycling does. It turns cars and computers into ingots and back into cars and computers. I can turn mining trails into nuclear weapons using science too, but I haven't discovered anything.
"When scraps of steel and brass are anodized using a common household chemical and residential electrical current,"
Not sure the houses the author visits, but not many I know have ammonium fluoride and even less have cylinders of argon/hydrogen gas lying about!
Are they not? Apparently they charged them 5000 times. That seems pretty rechargeable.
The nickel iron battery in alkaline is an old, rugged battery chemistry. The nanostructuring the surface is new. The scrap bit seems like hype. Steel is easy to separate out by magnets, and copper is more expensive. So is nickel. I guess a cheaper substitute to nickel would also be an improvement.
What does a junkyard have to do with it? Is it because a steel-brass battery is a complete waste of steel and brass?
I suspect so. I mean, my car was largely built from scraps of metal from a junkyard, reforged into good steel, but really the source of a material has little to do with anything.
These batteries are not rechargable and a complete waste of time and effort.
Then how come they recharged them 5000 times with only 90% loss of capacity?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Sign me up once it t takes banana peel and beer can
For comparison, current rechargeable lithium ion has anywhere from 100wh/kg almost 300wh/kg. Heck, even Ni-Cd is about 70wh/kg...
It's neat that it's got a fast recharge capability, but the energy density is still too low to be practical for anything major in this day and age.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Most people couldn't go off grid if they were handed a fully operational pre-configured system. I don't see people building their own batteries any time soon.
"We're forging new ground with this project, where a positive outcome is not commercialization, but instead a clear set of instructions that can be addressed to the general public. It's a completely new way of thinking about battery research, and it could bypass the barriers holding back innovation in grid scale energy storage," Pint said.
So far, batteries have remained outside of this culture, but I believe we will see the day when residents will disconnect from the grid and produce their own batteries. That's the scale where battery technology began, and I think we will return there," Pint said.
I think Pint is a bit self deluded if he thinks the university isn't going to patent the hell out of any possible development from this and wring every copper they can in licensing fees. In addition, I really can't see most people building their own batteries of sufficient storage capacity to power a home during peak usage time. Maybe an "Almost Ready to Charge(ARC)" kit that you would just have to add electrolyte to before using.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
How does this compare to selling the brass, and buying Tesla Li-ion Powepacks? I bet that would result in more capacity per kg of brass.
What does a junkyard have to do with it? Is it because a steel-brass battery is a complete waste of steel and brass?
I suspect so. I mean, my car was largely built from scraps of metal from a junkyard, reforged into good steel, but really the source of a material has little to do with anything.
These batteries are not rechargable and a complete waste of time and effort.
Then how come they recharged them 5000 times with only 90% loss of capacity?
With 90% of?
I'm curious how these cells perform in cold weather conditions.
I use 12VDC lead-acid SLA batteries on a mountain top for a wireless repeater but those are like 0.05kw/kg and $280-300/ea. Getting heavy batteries up the mountain can be extremely challenging (think snowshoes uphill in 5-6ft of snow carrying a 100lb replacement battery). I'm also at the 49th parallel so winter peak solar is like 3 hours/day and you need a large buffer in case it is effectively zero hours of solar for days in a row while keeping your radios up 24/7.
Something like this would be great for me since it's something like 1500x more energy dense by weight... That is, if it can survive cold weather, or with a heater it is still an effective alternative.
1.sci-hub.cc (http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/)
2.10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00295
3.???
4.Profit!
...is busy transforming your high performance battery (and smartphone) into junkyard scrap!
Somehow they forgot to tell us about the efficiency of the charge cycle. From their graphs seems like somewhere between 30-50%. If that is true then it redefines "high performance".
A team of engineers and materials scientists at Vanderbilt University have discovered how to make high-performance batteries using scraps of metal from the junkyard and common household chemicals. The researchers believe their innovation could provide the large amounts of economical electrical storage required by the grid to handle alternative energy sources and may ultimately allow homeowners to build their own batteries and disconnect entirely from the grid.
There is an important word missing there. That word is "economical". Academic researchers tend to forget this word. If they cannot make an economical high performance battery then it is a meaningless exercise. There are lots of valuable materials in scrap yards. The reason we don't typically go to scrap yards to source materials as a first choice is because doing that is expensive compared to alternative supply streams (mining, etc). There are lots of activities that are technically feasible but economically not viable.
"These batteries are not rechargable and a complete waste of time and effort."
Of course they are rechargeable. They seem to be quite similar to NiFe Edison Cells which are used in a few applications because of their virtues -- long life and tolerance of overcharging and deep discharge. The Edison cells have some problems which discourage them from wider use including inefficiency and, IIRC, high self discharge rate.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Ok, this is cool I want to try it. Does anyone have the details from the paper behind the pay wall?
This would be fun to do with my daughter.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Didn't the Professor do this on Gilligan's Island? Using a couple coconuts and some extra parts left over from a NASA space probe?
According to wikipedia, the NiFe self-discharge rate is 20% to 30% a month. That is fairly high, but not so bad as to be unusable. For reference, good NiCd batteries are about 10% a month.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
E=mc^2....
Anything is a battery...
They tested it for 5,000 consecutive charging cycles -- the equivalent of over 13 years of daily charging and discharging -- and found that it retained more than 90 percent of its capacity."
That assumes you only charge once per day. My phone gets charged at least twice a day and frequently more often than that.
I'm not saying I'm not impressed - but I think equating 5000 charge cycles to 13 years because 5000/365=13.7(ish) is a bit of a stretch!
I suppose it depends on what sort of batteries they might build. The Tesla Powerwall might be something that has a single charge per day cycle - charge up during sunlight - discharge when there is no sun but even that is pretty simplistic. Maybe I'll just change the status to "It's complicated"! :)
I have a 24V 10Ah 10C Lithium battery. Sold as multicopter battery. It weighs about a kg. (1200g IIRC, but lets round that to make the math easier).
100A*24V = 2.4kW. That's 8 times worse than the 20kW/kg for the metal scraps battery. As the power density is important for flying things, this would be great for flying.....
As to the energy densigty, I have 24V * 10Ah = 240Wh in about a kg. They have only 20Wh/kg. They are worse than my battery by a factor of 12....
Somthing fishy here.