Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Create Battery That Charges In Seconds and Lasts For Days (telegraph.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on from the need-to-see-it-to-believe-it dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Telegraph: A new type of battery that lasts for days with only a few seconds' charge has been created by researchers at the University of Central Florida. The high-powered battery is packed with supercapacitors that can store a large amount of energy. It looks like a thin piece of flexible metal that is about the size of a finger nail and could be used in phones, electric vehicles and wearables, according to the researchers. As well as storing a lot of energy rapidly, the small battery can be recharged more than 30,000 times. Normal lithium-ion batteries begin to tire within a few hundred charges. They typically last between 300 to 500 full charge and drain cycles before dropping to 70 per cent of their original capacity. To date supercapacitors weren't used to make batteries as they'd have to be much larger than those currently available. But the Florida researchers have overcome this hurdle by making their supercapacitors with tiny wires that are a nanometer thick. Coated with a high energy shell, the core of the wires is highly conductive to allow for super fast charging. The battery isn't yet ready to be used in consumer devices, the researchers said, but it shows a significant step forward in a tired technology.

14 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. I'm going to make a prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This technology will be in shops within the year.

  2. So, how often does it explode? by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that whenever energy is both very dense and very accessible, you've made an explosive. Existing battery technology is already going that direction. At what point will I need to register my phone as a destructive device under the NFA?

    1. Re:So, how often does it explode? by SumDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      https://xkcd.com/651/

    2. Re:So, how often does it explode? by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Informative

      Electronics guy here, and I was thinking along the same lines.

      Capacitors are two plates, very close together, separated by an insulator.

      We attach power up to the two plates and a static charge occurs between the two.

      After we remove the power source the capacitor retains the static charge and would do so forever if it weren't for decay due to leakage across the insulator.

      The "capacity" of a capacitor is directly proportional to the surface area of the two plates.

      The voltage it can hold is defined by the arc-through point of the insulator quality and distance between the plates.

      Sounds like they have all that figured out.

      --

      The advance in battery consumption has bottomed not been on the battery and breakthroughs on the efficiency of the device(s) that needs the battery power have pretty much topped out, as well.

      This method could be a game-changer, but I wonder about factors that would degrade the integrity of the system, especially the distance between the two plates (punctures, blunt force, flexibility) and the shelf life of the insulators.

      Those factors have always been a concern with capacitors.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re: So, how often does it explode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With tech that can charge in seconds, id probably guess it results in changes to device expectations. Something like cell phones that hold less total power, but can be charged wirelessly in a few seconds every 4 hours or something. Basically more frequent yet quicker charges.

    4. Re:So, how often does it explode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The advance in battery consumption has bottomed not been on the battery and breakthroughs on the efficiency of the device(s) that needs the battery power have pretty much topped out, as well.

      Lieutenant Colonel Korn, take that sentence out and shoot it.

  3. yay math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick search tells me a phone battery typically has a capacity of something like 1500 mAh, so "charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn't need to charge it again for over a week" sounds like something on the order of adding 5000 mAh in 30 seconds.

    That would mean a current of 600 amps, assuming 100% efficiency. For reference, USB 3.0 has a max of 0.9 amps, Lightning is a little over 2, a refrigerator draws 6 amps, and your household circuit breaker will trip at 15 amps.

    1. Re:yay math by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Without giving the voltage, those numbers are pretty meaningless. Power = Volts * Amps

      Lightning has a huge power at 2A because it's millions of volts.

      A high-end microprocessor can draw about 100A, but only at a little over 1 volt.

      Your circuit breaker will trip at 15A, but at 120V. That's 1800W. If this capacitor is only charged to about 1.5 V like a typical battery, the 600A would only be 900W.

      Thus, you could easily charge it from a standard outlet. It would require a beefy power supply similar to those in large servers, though. I think that most people would opt for a cheaper power supply that could still charge their phone in a minute or two.

  4. Super cap or super crap? by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...about the size of a finger nail and could be used in phones, electric vehicles ...

    Wow. A battery the size of a finger nail that can power an electronic vehicle for days! I'm impressed. At least I'm impressed by the quantity of bullshit that the Slashdot editors will let be packed into a lame summary.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  5. How many times... by NormAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the years how many announcements / articles that promise some revolutionary technology have been talked about on here and yet years later they're still nowhere near being on the market. We're still waiting for those rollable / foldable displays that have been on the horizon for years, the closest that I've seen is a video of an LG prototype at this years CES show, you couldn't even hold it as they only had one and it was behind plastic; no shipping products use it yet.

    There have been articles on here before about some university saying they have working nano-tube enhanced capacitors that will replace conventional batteries and promise unlimited and very quick recharges and yet still not on the market. When this gets on the market it'll be a revolution for mobile devices and probably electric cars too since they currently take 6 to 8 hours to charge, the Tesla high power wall charger promises to recharge in 3.5 hours but it's not like you can take that with you on the road.

  6. NOT A BATTERY by amoeba1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A capacitor is not a battery! They can fulfill the same need sometimes, but it's entirely different principle of operation. Next, the article is all about how lithium batteries suck, but doesn't talk about how this new capacitor compares to other capacitors or batteries. Before you can tell if this is useful at all or just junk, you have to know at least these four key metrics:

    energy density per mass
    energy density volume
    power density per mass
    power density per volume

    The article is useless, doesn't list anything relevant.

    1. Re:NOT A BATTERY by BenFranske · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note that TFS states that "The high-powered battery is packed with supercapacitors..." see the definition for battery responsible for why we call groups of electrochemical cells batteries... "a set of units of equipment, typically when connected together" which is based on the traditional usage for artillery batteries. So if there are multiple supercapacitors working together it's absolutely correct to call it a battery (specifically a battery of supercapacitors, instead of a battery of electrochemical cells). Note that I doubt that the author was actually thinking along these lines when they wrote the piece, but I would argue it could still be correct.

  7. Same questions as always.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's the volumetric energy density compared to lithium batteries or liquid hydrocarbons?
    What's the storage price per unit of energy?
    How easy is it to scale up production?
    Is it dependent on rare or difficult to obtain materials?

    These questions are the ones that *matter*. All else is detail.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  8. It's a bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't a new battery at all, it isn't a new supercapacitor either, its a method of making nanowire supercapacitors by growing them from 2D substrates.

    But how do you explain that to Telegraph newspaper readers? Those readers won't understand that supercapacitors is already a mass market product, or that replacing batteries with them is already a niche thing.

    So the Telegraph writes it up as 'magic battery', and Slashdot submitter echoes that.