Slashdot Mirror


The Slashdot Interview With Lithium-Ion Battery Inventor John B. Goodenough

You asked, he answered!

Lithium-ion battery inventor John B. Goodenough has responded to questions submitted by Slashdot readers. Read on for his answers. Ready for mass production?
by hduff

There are several innovative ideas for better batteries that never make it to market. The problem is that you can make a few by hand in the lab, but production of useful numbers does not scale well at all or it scales, but is horribly expensive. Will your development reasonably scale? If not, what stands in your way.

JBG: At the present time, we do not envision any problems with scale up. Although we have demonstrated with coin cells and a jelly-roll cell how to make novel cathodes, we have not optimized the cathode capacity, voltage, and discharge/charge rates. The anode problem is solved, but battery manufacturers will need to work with Li or Na anodes, which means dry-room assembly.

Critics
by Anonymous Coward

How do you respond to critics of the new battery technology? When can we expect to see them hit the street?

JBG: We respond by demonstrating the concepts in individual coin cells. We do not do the development work. We believe that practical batteries can be marketed in about 3 years.

Electrode material?
by Razed By TV

There seems to be some confusion about whether or not your battery has the same material or differing material on the two electrodes. Can you elaborate on this and, if the electrodes are the same material, how the battery works?

JBG: We have made zero-voltage symmetric cells Li/Li+-glass/Li that are still cycling after more than 2000 cycles at 3 mA/cm2. The key to the concept of a battery voltage that takes metallic lithium from the anode and plates it on the cathode is that a thin lithium (order of a micron thick) current collector is plated on a copper (or other) cathode lithium having a chemical potential over 3.5 V below that of metallic.

Li-ion battery fires
by Anonymous Coward

Could you speculate on the reasons behind the increasing frequency of Li-ion battery fires? Cheaper parts, smaller tolerances, higher energy density, or all of the above?

JBG: The origin of the Li-ion battery fires is the flammable organic-liquid electrolyte and the graphite anode. If the battery is charged too rapidly, metallic lithium is plated on the graphite, and lithium does not wet or is not wet by the electrolyte. As a result, on repeated charging, lithium dendrites (whiskers) form and grow across the liquid electrolyte to the cathode and create a short-circuit, which heats the battery and ignites the electrolyte. If the battery manufacturer does not incorporate a control of the rate of charge, fires follow.

Energy density
by JoshuaZ

Over time battery energy density has improved by approximately 5-10% a year. Do you expect this trend to continue? If not, what do you expect will happen in the long-term? Are there other metrics by which you expect batteries to continue to improve?

JBG: Energy density needs to be coupled to the charge/discharge cycle life; with the organic-liquid electrolytes now in use, batteries of high volumetric and/or specific energy density undergo a poor cycle life. The ability to plate a metallic-lithium anode dendrite-free from a solid electrolyte that is not reduced on contact with metallic lithium solves the safety problem, allows a long cycle life, and maximizes the energy density for a given cathode. However, the cathode strategies to optimize the density of stored energy in a full cell are yet to be determined for three different types of cathodes.

Time to market
by MondoGordo

Assuming your new battery tech scales easily and economically for mass production and given the intensifying demand for such tech, when would you expect to see it supplant lithium-ion as the battery technology of choice for manufacturers?

JBG: It will take competent battery manufacturers about two to three years to develop a marketable product. Once the technology is demonstrated by one, others will fall into line very rapidly.

Why?
by Bodhammer

Why is every technology breakthrough I read about "five to ten years away from commercial viability?"

JBG: There is a large difference between a laboratory experiment and a workable battery product. The potential market is huge, but incremental steps will not get us there. But without a demonstration of a novel approach, the estimate of 10 years away is an expression of hope for a true breakthrough. I believe that in two to three years our novel batteries will be marketed.

Will there always be a demand for lithium?
by Michael Woodhams

Will there always be a demand for lithium? Demand for lithium is soaring and supply is scrabbling to keep up. If I was contemplating constructing a lithium mine/extraction facility, I would be worried that my investment might do fine for five years and then suddenly become worthless when some new battery chemistry came along. Is this fear justifiable? Is it reducing current or near-future lithium supply?

JBG: The lithium battery will give 0.3 V higher discharge voltage than sodium, and sodium cathodes are less easy to design than lithium cathodes. However, we have demonstrated good sodium batteries; and people are working on recycling of lithium, which may reduce our vulnerability to finite lithium reserves. Lithium batteries will be marketed for a long time, but sodium batteries can be expected to enter the market within 5 years.

Where to next?
by Anonymous Coward

I am an electrical engineer and developing a battery pack for a light electric aircraft. What do you think is the next big application for batteries after EVs and home energy storage? Into what specific area of batteries should engineers focus their work on when developing battery systems? What is your ultimate vision for battery technology? Could you elaborate?

JBG: Inexpensive batteries that are safe, have a long cycle life, a higher energy density, and a satisfactory charge/discharge rate can be expected to be on the market in about 2 to 3 years. They will have multiple applications, small and large.

Limit of energy density
by Eloking

John, is it (theoretically) possible for a battery to reach the same energy density as fossil fuel? Gasoline has an energy density of 46MJ/kg while a lithium based battery has an energy density of around 1MJ/kg. This would mean that an electric car, boat or airplane would have the same potential range as their oil powered brethren.

JBG: Fossil fuels will always have a higher density of stored energy, but the efficiency of electric-power storage in a battery is greater than the efficiency of a combustion engine. I believe that electric power stored in electrochemical cells can compete relatively soon in convenience and performance with the internal combustion engine without the hidden losses to society by the burning of fossil fuel.

Why aren't 12 V lithium car batteries more popular?
by brad3378

I've noticed that replacement lithium polymer battery packs for hybrid cars often sell for less than $1,000 on eBay, while much smaller lithium based 12 V batteries for conventional cars (with starter motors) often sell for more. As an example, here is a battery suitable for starting a small V8 that sells for $1,600.00. I would assume that it would be much easier to manufacture conventional 12 V starter batteries in volume due to the ability to put them in many more different models of vehicles. The ability to shave off 30+ pounds of weight from race cars would be enormous, so the demand is there, but why not the supply?

JBG: The lead-acid battery is here and is safe. The present Li-ion battery has safety problems and is too expensive. We need a step improvement from the lithium-ion battery to a safe metallic-lithium battery that is cheap to manufacture and to recycle. We believe we have demonstrated this is possible.

What were the problems along the way?
by Anonymous Coward

I'm curious about the development path leading to the recent announcement. What changed to make this battery possible now, versus a decade ago? Was it analytical techniques (better math, faster computers)? Measurement and observation tools (fast/fine X-Ray, femto-second pulsed lasers)? Overall progress in the physical, chemical and electro-chemical sciences? Assembling the right team and lab? Or was it more about waiting for a spark of insight or inspiration? Which factors dominated the development path? And what about the path forward to commercialization?

JBG: What has changed is the ability to plate dendrite-free lithium from a non-flammable solid electrolyte that has a cation conductivity nearly as high as that of the flammable liquid electrolyte of the lithium-ion battery.

Patents
by Gravis Zero

1) Is there any reason these batteries cannot be used for grid-scale energy storage? 2) Who own the patents to the battery technology and will they license it cheaply or hold back the market for 20 years like the overly greedy venture capitalists behind Aquion Energy?

JBG: 1) Our technology can provide competitive grid energy storage and 2) we plan to license the technology to many manufacturers; we want to avoid an exclusive license.

What are the downsides to your sodium batteries
by tempest69

I am very excited about sodium batteries. As sodium is a much more environmentally friendly element to produce at large scale (my conjecture, I didn't look it up). What were the roadblocks of using sodium in previous batteries? I suspect whisker growth, but am not familiar with batteries enough to know other possibilities. With the glass version, what are the big drawbacks to using sodium instead of lithium (if any)? Thank you for your kind reply in advance!

JBG: Sodium is cheaper than lithium and widely available from the ocean. The principal drawbacks include a loss of 0.3 volts relative to lithium, fewer number of cathode materials that can serve as traditional insertion compounds, and a somewhat greater difficulty to handle in a manufacturing process. However, we have demonstrated a new battery strategy that promises to allow sodium batteries to enter the market competitively.

It's the economics
by marcle

Prof. Goodenough, right now, electric cars are only for the well-to-do. In my rural area, not only do people have to drive long miles, but many of them couldn't afford a new car anyway, let alone an electric one. Do you envision battery prices coming down to the point where an electric vehicle can compete with a gas-powered car at the low end of the income scale as well as at the high end?

JBG: Yes, I do envision that within 5 years electric cars that can compete in price and performance with those powered by gasoline will become available.

What do you watch?
by ihaveamo

What other developments in the field of energy storage do you keep a close eye on? Do you foresee breakthroughs coming from other technologies such as gyroscopes or even organic hydrogen production?

JBG:I have no crystal ball on other technologies, but I would not bet on the room-temperature fuel cell powered by hydrogen gas.

Viability
by OneHundredAndTen

We keep hearing about breakthroughs in the battery technology world to the tune of several per year. After many years in this forum, the empirical observation is that such breakthroughs are forgotten after a few months, quietly buried, practically never having a measurable impact on our lives. Please explain why your latest claim about a battery breakthrough is not going to end up following that route.

JBG:We have done many tests with laboratory cells. Manufacturing a marketable battery cell will take about 2 years of development by a competent battery company, but we have over 50 companies showing interest to be able to perform tests of our results. I am optimistic that our tests will be verified and that product development will begin soon.

How do you feel about UT patent management?
by MyFirstNameIsPaul

Somewhere around the mid- to late 2000s, I was researching LiFePO4 patents, and came across the University of Texas (UT) patent for which you are listed as an inventor. When I investigated licensing the patent, it was so expensive that it was not profitable to bother with the license at all. The factory partner I worked with was in China, and they were mass-producing the same LiFePO4 for jurisdictions not impacted by the patent. As I understand it, the law firm that UT chose to manage the patent set a price that was incredibly high. Then, invariably, some company would build a market for a LiFePO4 product that violated the patent, and then the law firm would step in after the company had actually done some business and sue them for all they were worth. I have to admit that this last bit was told to me by some battery industry veterans, but it seems plausible based on how the battery industry works. Nonetheless, the decision of UT to exclusively grant permission to the law firm to manage the patent kept the invention out of the market and likely cost UT some incredible amount (billions?) in royalties. How do you feel about your invention, which clearly made mass-production of the chemistry viable, being effectively kept off the market for so long? (BTW, when UT lowered their prices with, like, 5 years or so left on the patent, the factory I worked with immediately purchased the licensed material for selling their batteries in the U.S.)

JBG:UT has now developed an Office of Technology Commercialization that is much more competent. We are building a patent portfolio that I hope will prove successful, and we will not offer an exclusive license. I cannot comment on pirating by the Chinese, but I believe they are learning it is better to play by the international rules. However, where billions of dollars are at stake, the vultures are circling.

Why are they not especially robust?
by serviscope_minor

Rechargeable lithium cells are clearly excellent and power the majority of battery powered things I own. However, by comparison to older, less energy dense techs, they don't seem especially robust, for instance they degrade fast if deep discharged or left at very low charge levels. By comparison, say, NiCd batteries are very robust: while they do lose life, they do it in a pretty slowly and predictable way, you don't get it going off a cliff edge. I've noticed with some (though not all) devices, the battery life drops from hours to minutes in a relatively short timespan. The battery meter also ceases working, which I assume means that the internal resistance spikes way up suddenly and at higher voltages than fresh cells. Can you offer any good insight as to why this happens, and do you think there are going to developments in the pipeline which will introduce the tolerance of the cells? Or are we going to have to rely on better quality active protection circuitry instead?

JBG:The present lithium-ion batteries have many drawbacks because they use a flammable liquid electrolyte that has a small window for a stable voltage range. We have a nonflammable solid electrolyte with a comparable cation conductivity and a large energy window to allow plating a lithium anode dendrite free; a lithium anode is still cycling after more than 2000 charge/discharge cycles and it is not oxidized by the cathode up to a 5 V discharge.

A lithium powered energy economy
by kyubre

Mr. Goodenough, it seems that the world's reserves of lithium are far more centralized than nearly any other energy source. Do you foresee a way to avoid the geopolitical struggles for lithium ore that we experience with oil reserves? Do you see an upper limit on the ability to recycle and reuse existing lithium batteries (those that have avoided a landfill)?

JBG:You raise an important point. We have demonstrated we can make sodium cells with only a loss of 0.3 V compared to lithium cells, and sodium is available from the oceans. However, it is important to develop the means to recycle the lithium batteries to reduce vulnerability to the situation you cite.

Too many ways to skin the cat
by skids

With so many different research approaches to improving batteries, investment in bringing new technology to production scale is often viewed as a hazardous endeavor... there's a pretty good chance the tech you pick will end up getting surpassed by another before financials break even. Obviously the free market helps foster a spirit of competition, but its brutal darwinism also serves as a disincentive. Planned market solutions can spread out risk, but also have to be wary of funding completely unworthy endeavors... if everyone working on batteries, win or lose, got a small but guaranteed "compensation prize," lots of people would jump in and claim without merit to be working on batteries. Subdividing the technology so that different phases of a manufacturing process are developed by different entities seems a promising idea for those parts of the technology that may have wider applications or may apply to multiple competing designs -- but that would require a lot of advocacy which just does not seem to be there. Have you seen any interesting proposals for business/market/public-funding models to address the "too many ways to skin a cat" problem?

JBG:True, the large prize has stimulated a world-wide competition for a solution. We have introduced the first all-solid-state technology that can operate below room temperature, is inexpensive for up to a 3-volt discharge, and can use a conventional cathode to over 4.2 V discharge with a long cycle life. Over 50 battery companies have shown interest in validating our findings and marketing products.

Battery structure and capacity
by gantry

How thick is the initial anode foil of Li or Na? This determines the capacity of the battery. All quantities in the paper are expressed per gram of lithium. The cathode has particles of glass electrolyte, carbon, and sulphur, with a copper collector. When the lithium is plated onto the cathode, upon which of these components is it plated, and how thick is the plating?

JBG:You are correct to imply that plating on the cathode from the anode can only give a voltage for a finite thickness of the plated material on the cathode side. We have not yet obtained a good measure of the thickness of the cathode plating that is viable, but it appears to be micro not nanometers thick. Optimizing the capacity will involve the ability to optimize the surface area of the cathode material. This optimization has yet to be performed, but we can plate sodium as well as lithium.

Cathode problem?
by bayduv1n

In the IEEE article, it was stated that the cathode problem has not yet been solved. Can you elaborate on this? Were the lab experiments conducted without a cathode?

JBG:We have demonstrated two approaches to the cathode of a rechargeable battery: plating of the alkali-metal anode onto a cathode current collector of lower chemical potential to a limited thickness over a large surface area and a conventional high-voltage insertion compound with a plasticizer contacting the cathode. Both work.

103 comments

  1. modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hi guys, can we please mod down all goodenough jokes beyond this point? I just want to read the comments minus shitposting this time.

    Yours ironically,
    AC

    1. Re:modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I am certain that Slashdot's moderators will B. Goodenough to keep the crappy comments under control.

      (With apologies to Mr. Goodenough)

    2. Re:modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You sound like the jokes are not goodenough.

    3. Re:modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi guys, can we please mod down all goodenough jokes beyond this point?

      I'm sorry that our puns are not good enough for your cultured sensibilities. Maybe some chemistry puns would be oxide of potassium?

    4. Re:modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never mono-oxidize your carbon.

  2. Knowledgable by Stonesand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dang, that guy knows his stuff.

    1. Re:Knowledgable by hey! · · Score: 2

      Yeah. Don't you wished politicians answered questions this way:

      What has changed is the ability to plate dendrite-free lithium from a non-flammable solid electrolyte that has a cation conductivity nearly as high as that of the flammable liquid electrolyte of the lithium-ion battery.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Knowledgable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      He sounds like a marketing head.

      Why do Lithium batteries suddenly fail after their useful lifecycle? "The present lithium-ion batteries have many drawbacks because they use a flammable liquid electrolyte that has a small window for a stable voltage range."

      That's not what was asked. The flammable liquid electrolyte doesn't have jack-all shit to do with why lithium ion batteries suddenly lose capacity when they've been cycled too much. They lose capacity because the anode starts to degrade, pulling anchoring material off and giving no way to recharge the battery.

      Lithium ion batteries have a wide window for stable voltage. They're known to start at a high voltage, quickly drop off after less than 5% discharge, and hold almost-level until below 5% remaining charge.

    3. Re:Knowledgable by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      He mentioned the anode in several of the answers. He said the solution to the anode problem is using the electrolyte to plate the anode with lithium. He said that the organic, flammable, liquid electrolytes can't be used to plate the anode because dendrites form, leading to shorts and fires. About the only thing he did not specifically state was that as the anode deteriorates the voltage goes down until it is out of the electrolytes stable range, and then the battery is dead.

      So, yes, the organic flammable liquid electrolyte is precisely why the batteries suddenly go dead.

    4. Re:Knowledgable by Rei · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that "window" means "percentage charge window", as opposed to "window of time", "temperature window", or any of the other things that it could have meant.

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    5. Re:Knowledgable by bws111 · · Score: 1

      In your effort to appear superior to the guy who invented that battery, you managed to prove his point. The reason that batteries have the characteristic you pointed out is BECAUSE lithium has a narrow stable VOLTAGE range. They are either at that narrow range, or they are dead. Once the anode deteriorates sufficiently (due to the lack of plating), the resistance increases until the lithium no longer reaches that voltage during a charge, and the battery is dead. If lithium had a wide range (as you stated), then it could charge to 3V, or 2V, or 1V. It would no longer be working one day and dead the next, it would gradually put out less and less voltage.

    6. Re:Knowledgable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      A lithium ion battery at present has a very stable voltage between ~5% charge and ~95% charge. Outside that range, it has a sudden, sharp voltage drop-off (low state of charge) or a sudden, sharp voltage increase (high state of charge). The 100% state-of-charge is saturated, technically: you can't force more charge into the battery. That means that top 5% is really the top 5%, and not an artificial limit.

      That implies that 90% of the battery's run time also supplies a stable voltage. That's a pretty wide window for a stable voltage.

      Lithium ion batteries are also stable at a wide range of temperatures, and retain over 90% of capacity between operating temperatures of 10C through 60C; below that, they drop off rather-quickly. Because temperature of operation is typically acceptable and the context was not cold-temperature operation, it's unlikely he meant temperature window.

      By the by, people who can't pick up on context in conversation as such are typically unable to function. They're perpetually-confused and incapable of understanding what's happening around them. Such people are generally autistic, although in mild cases we just cal them idiots. These people are usually good at understanding material, concrete things, but not at understanding conversation (and, of course, terrible at picking up social cues from the contextual side-channel).

    7. Re:Knowledgable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are describing yourself?

    8. Re:Knowledgable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He sounds like a marketing head.

      You’re cute. You really don’t have any clue who you’re talking about and his role in the battery you’re discussing, do you?

    9. Re:Knowledgable by Rei · · Score: 1

      Once again, half your post focuses on your assumption that he was talking about voltage stability over a range of charge levels. That's your assumption. Great on you to make that assumption.

      Lithium ion batteries are also stable at a wide range of temperatures, and retain over 90% of capacity between operating temperatures of 10C through 60C; below that, they drop off rather-quickly.

      Good thing we don't live in a world where it's common to have temperatures below 10C.

      For the record, I live in a place where our average daily high doesn't break 10C until June.

      Because temperature of operation is typically acceptable

      Thank YHVH that we never have batteries outside! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get into this electric car over here, where my cell phone has been sitting...

      And FYI, the problem with operating a li-ion at high temperatures isn't that it "loses capacity" as you seem to think the problem is, it's that it dramatically shortens its lifespan.

      although in mild cases we just cal them idiots.

      Protip: next time you want to call someone else an idiot, learn to spell properly first.

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    10. Re:Knowledgable by bws111 · · Score: 1

      He did not say anything about a stable output voltage. He said the electrolytes have a small window for a stable voltage range. The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts. That is a small stable voltage range REGARDLESS of how well it holds that charge or delivers that voltage on discharge. And that is important, because as the internal resistance increases (due to anode decay), the voltage reaching the electrolyte decreases. Once the voltage reaching the electrolyte falls below 3.3 volts the battery does not store it. Which is exactly what we see with lithium batteries.

    11. Re: Knowledgable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why someone would find his answers unsatisfactory. It doesn't seem like it's because he's a marketing head. Rather, it seems like it's because he's so deep in the project his answers lack context to make them meaningful. The opposite of being a marketing head.

      In particular, I'm looking at the question "what changed?" Which I'm sure managed to be completely technically correct, while being a totally unsatisfying answer to the question.

    12. Re:Knowledgable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      He didn't say they have a narrow stable voltage range; he said they have a narrow window for a stable voltage range. There is a window within which they are in a stable voltage range; outside that window, their voltage range is unstable. That window is 90% of the battery's charge capacity.

      Second, a stable voltage is a desirable characteristic of a battery. You want a stable voltage. You want it to be 4.2V, or 3.3V; you don't want a battery that may be something between 3 and 5 AA cells. Remember how old NiCd power tools would start to slow down 1/4 of the way into their charge, and were notably-weak half-way in? That's what happens when you don't have a stable voltage range. Having a narrow range of voltages is a good thing. Having a stable voltage range over a wide window, which Lithium Ion batteries do, is an exceptional quality in a battery.

      Third, the question was about failure. The OP was asking why Lithiums fail suddenly--why they sharply lose capacity at full charge.

    13. Re:Knowledgable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      half your post focuses on your assumption that he was talking about voltage stability over a range of charge levels. That's your assumption.

      It's the reasonable assumption. You haven't proposed one that is more reasonable, unless you're suggesting JBG is just an idiot.

      Good thing we don't live in a world where it's common to have temperatures below 10C.

      It's still a wide range, and it's the range at which we operate most of these batteries in most contexts. One of the wonderful things about water is it's liquid across a wide range of temperatures, allowing life across the majority of climate zones on planets in the habitable zone of a star--such as Earth. That's only about a 100C range; and cats are uncomfortable above about 64C ambient, while the hottest survivable body temperatures of animals don't go above 42C. The listed world-record ambient weather is around 58C.

      Lithium batteries are stable in that range, and nearly 100% of all Lithium battery use cases are centered in that range (room-temperature, around 15C-25C), so it's not likely he's talking about temperature range--unless he's an idiot.

      the problem with operating a li-ion at high temperatures isn't that it "loses capacity" as you seem to think the problem is,

      Between 10C and 60C, lithium ion batteries have above 90% of their capacity. Above 60C, they have over 100% of their capacity and a dramatically-shortened lifespan. Their capacity is 100% at a temperature of 60C because that's expected, safe, non-destructive operational temperature; it's 103% at 70C because they're operating outside safe temperature margins, even if they do squeeze out a little more juice that way. This should be obvious, else 70C capacity would be 100%--again, information you can infer from context.

    14. Re:Knowledgable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts.

      This is a desirable attribute of a battery. It's what makes lithium batteries so much better than NiCd and, to a lesser degree, NiMH: they only have high voltage when within small percentage of their maximum state of charge; they hold near-flat voltage until chemically-exhausted; and they quickly fall off when discharged.

      Physically, a battery outputs higher voltage when a larger amount of its chemistry reacts at once. More electrons ready to go on one end, more positively-charged matter on the other. As that tapers down, the voltage reduces, and so does the current. As the cell loses its capacity to produce a charge difference at the given rate, the voltage falls further.

      Lithium Ion cells exhibit a dramatic increase in capacity to produce a charge differential at high state-of-charge. After that, they hold relatively-flat, which means you can expect a stable voltage until they flat run-out of material to react (low state-of-charge). Then the voltage drops off suddenly.

      That behavior is one of the most-desirable aspects of Lithium batteries. Are you telling me JBG is suggesting a predictable, near-fixed voltage is a bad thing? Should we re-engineer the United States power grid to supply a voltage that swings between 80V and 145V over the span of several hours every day, instead of holding reasonably-close to 117V at all times?

    15. Re:Knowledgable by bws111 · · Score: 1

      For someone who says others are unable to follow a conversation, you certainly show yourself to be unable to do so.

      You are talking about stability during a discharge cycle. Of course that is important, and nobody is saying anything that even remotely contradicts that. This is the 'stable voltage range' he is refering to.

      But he was aked about the FAILURE mode of the batteries. And in answer to that he said there is a narrow WINDOW which will produce that stable voltage range. The WINDOW is refering to the CHARGE voltages that are required in order for the battery to produce that stable range on discharge. There is only a narrow window of charge voltages which will produce the desired output.

      By reading ALL of his answers, you can see that the problem is that, on every cycle, more of a film builds up on the anode. This film interferes with the charging process (ie. less voltage is reaching the electrolyte). As long as the voltage is still in that window, stable output results. After a certain number of cycles there is enough film that the voltage reaching the electrolyte is OUTSIDE that window, and now the battery can no longer produce that stable voltage. The cell has FAILED.

      And the solution he provides to the problem is to prevent the build-up of film by plating the anode, which can't be done with the liquid electrolytes. He is in no way saying the problem is the stable voltage range, he is saying that in order to keep the DESIRABLE stable voltage range, you must stay in the window by preventing the film on the anode.

    16. Re:Knowledgable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      For someone who says others are unable to follow a conversation, you certainly show yourself to be unable to do so

      I'm following the current discussion. Let me remind you that my post above was in response to your post:

      He said the electrolytes have a small window for a stable voltage range. The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts.

      So my response on state-of-charge and the desirability of a stable voltage range is appropriate for the context of this discussion. Good try, but I have a bullshit-cutting katana.

      But he was aked about the FAILURE mode of the batteries. And in answer to that he said there is a narrow WINDOW which will produce that stable voltage range. The WINDOW is refering to the CHARGE voltages that are required in order for the battery to produce that stable range on discharge.

      Actually, the voltage at which you charge the battery only affects the rate at which it charges (and the amount of overcharge you can get when nearing/exceeding 100% capacity). Discharge voltage is controlled entirely by battery chemistry.

      In other words: Everything you said there is factually-incorrect, technically-inaccurate, and wrong.

      By reading ALL of his answers

      I'm only interested in the response he gave to the question of why Lithium chemistry batteries suddenly lose capacity as a failure mode, which he answered by spouting a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate bullshit. If you ask, "Why is the sky blue," and a guy starts talking about how the sky on Mars is red during the day and oceans reflect heat off the surface of the planet due to their mercury content, he's 1) spouting irrelevant bullshit; and 2) wrong. The content of the rest of his diatribe in a forum of further questioning is irrelevant to that inquisitive cycle.

      he is saying that in order to keep the DESIRABLE stable voltage range

      He suggested the stable voltage range is a problem caused by flammable electrolytes. You claimed that the stable voltage range is the charging range above, and have now changed the definition (fallacy of equivocation).

      You're really not good at arguing with people who can think and comprehend, you know that?

  3. Relevant XKCD by supremebob · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/678/

    They didn't have a "2 year" option in that chart, but I think that the "5 year" option applies.

    1. Re:Relevant XKCD by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I recently saw a talk about the upcoming "Clean Disruption" which is right around the corner. He looks at secular trends, such as the falling price per watt of solar PV or the price per kwh of Li-Ion batteries, and concludes that our current modes of energy and transportation will be obsolete by 2030.

      To portray the speed with which such 'disruptions' can occur, he begins the talk with a photo of 5th Ave., NYC, Easter Sunday, 1900. The street is packed with horse-drawn vehicles, but there is one car ("horseless carriage") in view, if you squint... Then he shows a photo from the same spot, same day, in 1913. The street is packed with Model-T Fords, and there is one horse in view, if you squint even harder.

      He claims that we are on the threshold of a similar tipping point right now. By 2030, that same photo of 5th Ave. will show an ocean of EV's with only one ICE vehicle in view.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:Relevant XKCD by OldMugwump · · Score: 1

      That's precisely why he says 2 to 3 years, not 5 or more. Everyone knows "5 years to commercial" means it will probably never happen. Including him.

      --
      "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
    3. Re:Relevant XKCD by Lost2Home · · Score: 1

      By 2030, that same photo of 5th Ave. will show an ocean of EV's with only one ICE vehicle in view.

      Considering that the average age of an auto in the US is eleven years and increasing, that is probably overly optimistic. Manufacturer projections are that they will be only selling 1-2% EVs by 2020, so anything beyond 20-25% by 2030 is unfortunately unrealistic (based on what the manufacturers will be producing if nothing else).

    4. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems like a bit of a longshot. A quick change between completely different kinds of vehicles is possible because of incompatibilities that develop once one begins to displace the other and make it less practical (and even then, the effect is likely to be localized, hence the example of a dense urban area where the ability to accommodate both forms of transportation is most limited). That just isn't possible with vehicles that are functionally identical and only differ in their power source. The only way you'll get that effect with EV vs. ICE is through regulations that prohibit the use of ICE-powered vehicles in a particular area. At that point, it's about as representative of a tipping point as showing before and after pictures of a street that was turned into a pedestrian area. "Cars are a thing of the past, everyone walks everywhere now!" For it to truly be a tipping point in just 13 years, you would need to have EVs dominating new car sales today. We're not there yet.

    5. Re:Relevant XKCD by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      The speaker (Tony Seba) extrapolates the drop in Li-Ion batteries over the last couple of decades (~15%/yr) and predicts when an EV with 200mi range will reach certain price points over the next few years. (The book came out in 2014, so some of his predictions have already come true.)

      By 2017-18, a 200mi EV will be available for $35~40k on the mass market.
      By 2020, a 200mi EV will be available for $30k (whereas the median price for a car in the USA is $33k).
      By 2022~23, a 200mi EV will be available for less than $25k... the low range for cars in the US market.

      Given that EV's have a much lower cost of ownership -- lower cost for "fuel" plus FAR lower cost of maintenance -- only a complete IDIOT would buy an ICE car after 2023.

      That's how 'disruptions' happen...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    6. Re:Relevant XKCD by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      Manufacturer projections are that they will be only selling 1-2% EVs by 2020

      This point is directly addressed in the talk. He cites a 1985 McKinsey study that predicted cell-phone penetration would by 900k by 2000 (the actual number turned out to be 100+ million) to show that "experts" often fail to notice these disruptions. Yes, auto-makers may be projecting 1~2% sales by 2020, but the vast majority of them are rushing to bring EV's to market in the next few years. Their actions speak louder than their words.

      Based solely on the falling price of battery "energy density", he predicts the "tipping point" for EV's will come in the early 20's... If we then apply your replacement rate for the vehicle fleet of 9%-per-year, we're pretty close to a complete turnover by 2030.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    7. Re:Relevant XKCD by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      That is all great stuff, but the problem is that only some relatively small fraction of car buyers purchase new cars. Additionally if EV's do wind up being more reliable for longer than it is very likely that we won't see them changing hands as much, so it'll take longer for them to percolate down to the chunk of the population that buys cars with cash or personal loans. That could also be slowed by the value of EV's not dropping as rapidly as with ICE vehicles.

      Then there is the matter of the rate at which vehicles are replaced. A news blerb I just perused said we had about 253 million cars on the road, and only about 10 to 12 million of them get scrapped per year. I presume that the big automakers actually sell more than that each year by some fraction. If we went with the crazy premise that the automakers started only selling EV's as of the beginning of this year then we might be on track to have 60% of the cars on the road being EV's in 2030.

      The comparison of the shift from horses to cars isn't really applicable to ICE vs EV's. The automobile outclassed horses to such a degree that it was an obvious choice for everyone that could afford it. Yet automobiles were still relatively inexpensive at the time compared to factory workers wages when you looked at what they offered. EV's of today, and likely the future, just don't offer the same kind of drastic advantage over an ICE. From what you've posted even you aren't projecting them to be available as apple to apple competitors until 2023. And even then that is for the new car market, when the huge majority of people are driving vehicles a decade or more old.

    8. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that EV's have a much lower cost of ownership -- lower cost for "fuel" plus FAR lower cost of maintenance -- only a complete IDIOT would buy an ICE car after 2023.

      We live in a world where people drive enormously impractical vehicles in the least efficient manner possible for no actual reason except to stick it to environmentalists. And you think this world is going to switch to all-EV in less than a decade? Never mind that it's going to take a lot more than one model of EV or even one class of EV for this to work. Or that the charging infrastructure is going to need some expansion and a lot of PR before most people will be comfortable buying an EV. Or that used cars exist and the assumed desirability of EVs will drive down the price of used ICE cars until a balance is reached. The basic premise fails to account for human psychology and the fact that car purchases are driven by more than just pure logic. We just came out of a period of high gas prices, which made fuel economy a big selling point in the short term but not so much in the long term once prices came down. Promising lower fuel costs isn't going to do much for a big part of the market.

    9. Re:Relevant XKCD by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

      You are right to note that these effects vary by area, case in point horse drawn transport was used in rural America into the early 50's. I think you are underestimating how quickly incompatibilities can mount. In practice, there was nothing keeping the model t and the horse from sharing a city street. The roads were the same and speeds were low. The infrastructure, however, was vastly different. Horses need stables and fodder, cars need gas and mechanics. In a similar way, functionally EVs and ICE vehicles share the same characteristics, but in terms of fuel and maintenance they are quite different. Especially in urban areas where land is at a premium, gas stations could be forced out by the drop in demand (or raise prices to exorbitant rates), quickly making the territory unfavorable to ICE.

    10. Re:Relevant XKCD by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      The switch to all EVs in cities could happen much more quickly because they'll likely legislate ICEVs off city streets due to pollution. Short range city EVs are already cheap to buy and run. Personally I have a LEAF and I also have a Mini which I use for long trips but that will get replaced shortly with another EV that can handle the same sort of distance. Many families have two cars so switching the one used in cities for an EV could and should happen sooner rather than later. The total car population won't switch over to EV anything like as quickly but in the near term it is pollution concerns not to mention traffic volumes that will see the ICEV disappear for any large presence in cities pretty quickly.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    11. Re:Relevant XKCD by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Watch the video, then get back to me...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    12. Re:Relevant XKCD by bws111 · · Score: 2

      What he is doing is cherry-picking. Yes, there have been cases where 'experts' drastically underestimated the impact something would have. However, there are just as many cases where they over-estimated the impact something would have. SSTs were going to drastically change air travel, except they didn't. Segways were going to change urban transport forever, except they didn't. The difference between over- and under-estimation is that the things that were under-estimated are around to remind us of the error, while the things that were over-estimated aren't.

      Cars were immediately seen as better than horses by most people. They pretty much sold themselves. Manufacturers didn't have to convince people to buy A car, they had the convince people to buy THEIR car. Same with cell phones.

      Does the average driver immediately see EVs as superior to ICE? About the only reason they would is price of fuel. Environmental concerns are important, but almost always take a back seat to economics at the individual level.

      Yes, auto-makers may be projecting 1~2% sales by 2020, but the vast majority of them are rushing to bring EV's to market in the next few years. Their actions speak louder than their words.

      This statement really doesn't make sense. 2020 IS 'the next few years'. Having 1-2% of your cars be EVs is better than having 0% of your cars be EVs and losing those customers to a competitor which is what will happen if they don't rush to bring out EVs. Their actions are in no way 'speaking louder than their words'.

    13. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based solely on the falling price of battery "energy density", he predicts the "tipping point" for EV's will come in the early 20's... If we then apply your replacement rate for the vehicle fleet of 9%-per-year, we're pretty close to a complete turnover by 2030.

      Except that average is the median age, meaning that, even with only slight increases in average age over the next decade or so, only about half of the fleet will turn over between now and 2030. Complete (~95%) turnover on the road will probably happen about 15-20 years after it happens at the dealership. It's going to take a lot more than the availability of EVs to get there by 2030.

    14. Re:Relevant XKCD by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Having 1-2% of your cars be EVs is better than having 0% of your cars be EVs

      The point is, manufacturers are adopting EVs at a much faster rate than the "1~2%" curve would lead you to believe.

      Put it this way: When Tesla announces the Model 3, and in less than one week a BILLION DOLLARS of pre-sales are logged, the industry sits up and takes notice. THEY sense that a tipping point is imminent, which is why they are rushing to meet the market.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    15. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the needs are similar, the delivery mechanisms are vastly different. What horses need must always be available; you can't just dump your horse anywhere all day and come back to find it ready to go. Also, there's the manure issue... In some ways, EVs are like horses, at least until quick charging is ubiquitous. Gas stations don't need to be on prime real estate, they can be relegated to the outskirts without much of a problem (with one guy downtown charging an arm and a leg because he can). But as of now, charging stations need to be where the EVs sit unattended (and counting on doing 100% of recharging at home just isn't realistic - oops, the breaker tripped when I plugged in after a long trip and now there's only enough of a charge to get to work). Again, quick charging changes this, but even that doesn't give EVs much of an advantage in terms of infrastructure. And actually, you wouldn't necessarily want a gas station in the highest traffic areas because the traffic would ironically block access to the gas station. Take all of the engine-specific infrastructure out of a city proper and you're not necessarily going to make either type of vehicle incompatible.

    16. Re:Relevant XKCD by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Telsa's pre-sales run to about 400K cars. 17.55 million new cars were sold in the US in 2016. So, if all of those pre-sales turn into actual sales, that is about 2% of car sales. Once. Is there any indication that they would sell ANOTHER 400K cars the next year, or will everyone who wants one already have one? That remains to be seen.

      You have provided zero evidence that 'manufacturers are adopting EVs at a much faster pace...'. Have they announced the conversion of factories to EVs away from ICEs? Have they announced new factories that are capable of building more than 2% of their cars by 2020 (only THREE years away)?

    17. Re:Relevant XKCD by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I'm not sold on legislative groups taking that kind of action. Those representatives are still largely dependent on an electorate and most of the population I can't see switching to EVs when they are still so expensive. I wouldn't expect that kind of uptake to happen until we start seeing used EV's suitable for city driving available in the $5000 or less range. I think we'll see those of us in the higher income brackets switching much earlier, but that'll just push even more perfectly usable ICE vehicles into the market that the poor/working poor will snap up and likely continue using for decades.

    18. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Tesla announces the Model 3, and in less than one week a BILLION DOLLARS of pre-sales are logged, the industry sits up and takes notice.

      Yeah, Ford says "Wow, it took them almost a week of pre-sales to equal less than two weeks worth of F-Series sales. We should probably come up with an EV design to test out while we bring in tens of billions of dollars every year from pickup truck sales alone."

    19. Re: Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "lower cost of maintenance" thing doesn't seem to be panning out at the moment.

      There's something to be said for building a billion of something: it's easy to cheaply acquire parts.

    20. Re:Relevant XKCD by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      The key inflection point is coming soon. When you can buy 25 year warranty 10kW of solar panels for $5000 (1600kWh/month generation and if batteries get really cheap and high energy density (48h of household run time/1000 mile range per charge vehicle range) the main barrier cost of EVs disappears. An industrial motor for an economy car is around $500 including the motor driver vs an ICE at $900 plus a $900 transmission that you don't need with an electric motor. If you can start selling economical EVs for $15k, people will rush to stop paying $2000/year for gas/gas taxes. The big rush to adoption will happen when those factors align. Until then, EVs are a toy for the rich (i.e. Tesla).

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    21. Re:Relevant XKCD by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest you watch the lecture linked in my original post. All your questions are answered there.

      But briefly: Yes, many major automakers have announced plans for EVs in the next few years. And of course, Nissan, Toyota, GM, and Daimler already have EVs on the market.

      The main point in the lecture is the trend in battery cost over the last 20 years, which has been falling at 14% per year. Mapping that trend into the future, the speaker (Tony Seba) predicts when EVs will cross certain price thresholds, finally hitting the $20k mark by 2023. He also notes along the way that the "fuel" cost for EVs is roughly 80-~90% less than for ICE cars. And since EVs typically only have about 20 moving parts, their maintenance costs are little more then fresh tires and wiper blades.

      At that point, how many people will still want to buy an ICE car? When the equivalent EV costs the same (or less) to buy, costs WAY less to operate, and has much better performance, how many people will opt for the more expensive ICE vehicle? I guess we'll find out over the next few years.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    22. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point, how many people will still want to buy an ICE car? When the equivalent EV costs the same (or less) to buy, costs WAY less to operate, and has much better performance, how many people will opt for the more expensive ICE vehicle? I guess we'll find out over the next few years.

      It depends on performance (overall suitability to the desired task, not just acceleration, etc.), features, looks, advertising, availability, what the neighbors buy, and a ton of other factors. Trying to extrapolate a market based on one component of a product is sheer lunacy. How many people even consider total cost of ownership when purchasing a vehicle? It's probably a lot less than you think - by and large, people don't care about these sorts of things until they become a problem, which is long after the purchase. The tipping point doesn't come when consumers pick one option over another, it comes when the manufacturers incorporate it over their entire product line. Until that happens, they'll be selling a hell of a lot of ICE vehicles regardless of whether they are objectively the best option.

    23. Re:Relevant XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the owner of 3 EV’s the advantages are obvious to me personally.

      There are many things unstable about the present Ice situation.
      - ICE’s are more expensive to run even in today’s low Gas price which will not last.
      - ICE’s are more expensive to maintain.
      - ICE’s make a lot more noise, pollution and general fouling up the roads.
      - The Gas Stations occupy an immense amount of valuable urban/residential space, than can easily be released back for other use. This is unstable.
      - All those auto repair/parts stores that swarm around your town have an immense cost. This is unstable.

      Right now the cost and charging rate are the only things serving as a moat around ICE. This is inherently unstable , esp. when the moat seems to get smaller and smaller every year. 10 years ago there was no DCFC, No 200 mile EV’s and even I was not interested in EV’s. Today they are talking about 350 kw DCFC in the same area as a parking stall. A dozen parking stalls could cover your entire neighborhood. Think about the efficiency and cost reduction. And no one in their right mind thinks anyone is done with the range or cost reduction or charge rate. I see projections that 1 kw of Battery costs about $6 in LiCo when using cost of production (not selling price due to present shortage pricing).

      The betting folks have done the math and the bet is that the moat around ICE vehicles will come down. If your monthly gas bill (3 cars) goes from $1100 to $82 as it did for me, including minimal maintenance, the present situation is unstable and prone to being overthrown.

    24. Re:Relevant XKCD by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you are still talking new cars and new car pricing. I think that it is possible that >95% of new vehicles in 2030 will be EV's. But there is no way we'll see anything close to 50% of the vehicles on the road being EV's by that time. It's simply a numbers game and people just don't replace their vehicles frequently enough to hit that kind of target even if all new vehicles were EV's. The only way it'd be possible that I can see would be if the cost of new EV's was low enough to compete favorably with the huge supply of used ICEV's on the road.

      I'm a fan of EV's. I own stock in an EV company. I want an EV as my daily driver. That said I drive a Toyota that is over a decade old and will likely continue as my daily driver for another decade at the least. The operating and ownership costs for that car are so low that there is no practical reason to replace it. Sure an EV would have lower costs but I'd actually have to spend a huge chunk of money for that. I'm better off milking every last economical mile out of my current car, in the meantime the costs for EV's will get lower and their features better. When I do eventually replace it I imagine I'll be able to get a 500 mile charge, super car like performance, and just maybe a high quality auto pilot feature all for the price of a luxury sedan.

      If I were rich I'd be driving a Tesla already. Sadly I'm not and I'm stuck making car decisions based on personal finance choices.

  4. Just like a ringin a bell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go go Johnny B. Goodenough

    1. Re:Just like a ringin a bell. by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      "Kinda go go Johnny B. Goodenough"

    2. Re: Just like a ringin a bell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your kids are gonna love it.

    3. Re:Just like a ringin a bell. by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 0

      I spit out my damn drink, good one!

    4. Re: Just like a ringin a bell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 lolz -PCP

  5. Failure modes by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    I would be interested to see what kind of failure modes there are for this new battery technology.

    1. Re:Failure modes by slew · · Score: 1

      I would be interested to see what kind of failure modes there are for this new battery technology.

      Since they claimed to not have totally figured out the "cathode" configuration part yet, I suspect that's the part that's that's the weak part in the chain...
      Generally, any difficulties like this in the lab point will lead to a lack of guidance in these areas for commercial solutions which will in turn translate to poorly understood commercial solutions. So any such difficulties are often the prime suspect for failure modes.

    2. Re:Failure modes by Rei · · Score: 1

      Still contains lithium or sodium metal. So in short, don't crack it open and chunk it in a bucket of water.

      Everything else is pretty tame.

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
  6. Re:Question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing wrong with it. It's my mother in law's nickname for me.

  7. Thanks! by olau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I for one enjoyed reading the replies. Although many of them didn't directly answer the questions asked, Goodenough comes across as a true battery nerd. Exactly the sort of person we need more of in this world. We'll see if the tech can be mass-produced cheap enough to compete with lithium-ion in the coming years.

    1. Re: Thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agree, it felt like he had talking points and things he wanted to address regardless of what was asked. Mainly how his product will be ready in 3 years.

    2. Re:Thanks! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Same here. There's been a ton of work being done in the area of "storage" in recent years, and I've been following it all with geeky obsession... It's refreshing to get such a unique POV on the current state of the art from a veteran without much of an axe to grind. (Of course he favors his own new invention, but he's up-front about that... meanwhile, his insights on the overall industry and the basic chemistries in play are very illuminating.)

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  8. Shipstone! by mi · · Score: 1

    We are well into the 21st century — where are the Shipstones?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Shipstone! by Punko · · Score: 1

      The novel Friday mentioned obliquely the biggest problem with the concept of the Shipstone. If you have an object, which has the ability to store large amounts of energy, you have a bomb. The Shipstone story in the novel has Shipstone himself telling his wife that the best minds in science wouldn't be able to figure it out themselves, or would blow themselves up.

      Let's say we have a solid state battery that would produce 30 years worth of electricity for your house. (in the book a lifetime Shipstone was mentioned as being built into the foundation of the house). If a typical home goes through 20 kWh per day, then this battery would need to store approx 220 MWh of juice at installation. That's 748 Million BTU. Or 790 000 MJ. OR roughly 170 metric tons of TNT. Would you live on that kind of stored energy object that is designed to be easy to use? I'd rather have my household energy delivered continuously via pipeline or wire, or even in discrete loads of say 1 month at a time.

      Let's not even imagine the security necessary to transport a charged Shipstone for an apartment building or skyscraper.

      Now, having a really good battery with the energy storage capacity of gasoline, would be awesome. But it would be fantastic if it could be recharged at the same rate that I can fill up a tank of gas. It would be unbelievably transformative if it could also be recharged at home at the same rate.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    2. Re:Shipstone! by Rei · · Score: 1

      I don't know what "Shipstones" are, but I'll just point out that "Being able to deliver a lot of energy" and "being able to deliver a lot of energy quickly" are two entirely different things. The rusting of aluminum gives off a lot more energy than the detonation of an equivalent mass of TNT, but they occur on entirely different timescales.

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    3. Re:Shipstone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The subtext of JBG's answer on the question of gasoline energy density vs battery energy density is : not how much energy you can store in the device, but what is the equivalent work you can get out of the device?

      The current consumer demands a 300-mile travel range per refuel, at total refuel time less than 5 minutes, at a capital cost of about $17,000, and an operating cost $5000/year. So, if you can deliver an electric vehicle product that meets or exceeds those constraints, you win at the value game.

      An electric vehicle has a higher capital cost due to battery cost, which can come down with new technologies like this. The operating costs are much lower, since electricity is pennies to gasoline at dollars. Refuel time is an issue, which could be solved with an ultracapacitor / battery hybrid, or a new battery chemistry that can sustain higher charge rates. Electric motors are more efficient than gasoline motors, but the total travel distance is limited by total battery storage capacity, which has the (more batteries > more weight > more batteries) declining efficiency problem.

  9. Lithium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lithium powered energy economy
      by kyubre

    Mr. Goodenough, it seems that the world's reserves of lithium are far more centralized than nearly any other energy source. Do you foresee a way to avoid the geopolitical struggles for lithium ore that we experience with oil reserves? Do you see an upper limit on the ability to recycle and reuse existing lithium batteries (those that have avoided a landfill)?

    JBG:You raise an important point. We have demonstrated we can make sodium cells with only a loss of 0.3 V compared to lithium cells, and sodium is available from the oceans. However, it is important to develop the means to recycle the lithium batteries to reduce vulnerability to the situation you cite.

    Lithium is also available in the oceans and progress is being made on an economical extraction method. Further, there hasn't really been much searching for lithium reserves yet. Once people start looking into the problem, many potential solutions will be found, and the best ones will win out.

    1. Re:Lithium by Rei · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Lithium isn't even all that expensive, compared to the price of the batteries it goes into; it's so cheap that it's used in low value products like greases, glass, glazings, etc.Current reserves figures are not just based on limited exploration, but limited exploration at a very low dollar value.

      That said, sodium metal is ridiculously cheap in bulk - like $3/kg or less. Cheaper still if it doesn't have to be packaged for transport (aka, used on-site). If you can make sodium-ion batteries with a several hundred watt-hours per kilogram energy density, and have the overall battery have the same value density as the sodium, you're storing electricity for almost nothing. We're talking whole EV battery packs that cost as much as a couple 12V batteries. Also, as you're removing the most common cation in seawater, you're also desalinating water at the same time. Picture a battery plant in the LA area, powered by solar, producing both EV batteries and freshwater (as well as byproduct hydrochloric acid for industry, and a concentrate (not counting water and residual sodium or chlorine) of around 41% magnesium, 29% sulfur, 13% calcium, 12% potassium, 2% bromine, 1% carbon, 0,4% strontium, 0,15% boron, 0,13% silicon, 621ppm aluminum, 458ppm fluorine, 294ppm nitrogen, 65ppm rubidium, 33ppm lithium, and so on down the line).

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
  10. However by maroberts · · Score: 2

    He did repeat his stock phrase "in two to three" years a helluva lot.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:However by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, how long do you think it would take to get a development from laboratory prototype to sitting in a blister pack at the hardware store?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Re:I would have guessed transliterated from German by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Next. Johann, um, Gaheiserburgle?"
    "That's good enough."
    "Got it, Johann Goodenough. Next."

  12. Re:I would have guessed transliterated from German by OrangeTide · · Score: 0

    I get your point, but that's not a great example. Gutknecht literally means Good Knight. German, Dutch, and Frisian are similar enough to English for there to be a lot of common words between them. Homonyms like "knight" and "night" has more to do with English being related to too many other languages and the lack of context when used as a name than with some malicious ignorance against immigrants to America.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Is mass production a science goal? by swb · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I have the terms and roles mangled, but when doing science for the purpose of inventing something like a new battery do scientists actually consider whether their research path yields an invention that can actually be scaled up to mass production?

    This guy seemed to be "Well, we figured out how it works, but I'm done now, somebody else has to figure out how to make more than the 2 prototypes I spent 4 years making in the lab."

    It reminds me of the kick-the-can-down-the-road in the technology business:

    Hardware guy: There is a hardware bug, but they can fix it in firmware.

    Firmware guy: They can fix it in the application.

    Application guy: We'll make sure that this gets into the manual.

    Documentation guy: I'll pass this along to the help desk, they can create a KB entry.

    Help Desk: I'll post something on Stack Exchange...

    1. Re:Is mass production a science goal? by cranky_chemist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a good reason for this.

      The funding agencies from which scientists seek money fund "research," in the broad sense, not "development." What you're hinting at is the fundamental difference between the two.

      Agencies like NSF tend to assume that if one of the projects they fund has practical applications, then "partners" (i.e., the private sector) will handle the development. Indeed, this is how Goodenough's original battery design came to market. Sony licensed the patent from Oxford University in the 1980s and started mass-producing lithium-ion batteries, paying Oxford a royalty on every battery manufactured.

    2. Re:Is mass production a science goal? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You are talking about completely different disciplines. Someone who is an expert in the chemistry of a battery may not know anything about the issues involved in actually manufacturing said battery. Someone who is an expert at manufacturing may not know anything about the chemistry involved.

      Your 'kick the can' scenario doesn't have anything to do with the above. That happens because it is enormously expensive, in both time and money, to get a design change into hardware. The farther you move down that chain, the quicker and less expensive it becomes. Somewhere in that chain is the 'sweet spot' for any given problem. Some problems are best fixed in hardware, some are best fixed in documentation, and most are best fixed somewhere in between. There is no one-size-fits-all always right answer.

    3. Re:Is mass production a science goal? by swb · · Score: 1

      Someone who is an expert in the chemistry of a battery may not know anything about the issues involved in actually manufacturing said battery.

      Part of me wonders if maybe we should have more cross-functional research teams, including people with manufacturing at scale experience. If the research in question is really just basic chemistry research and a battery just happens to come out of it, then maybe a manufacturing guy isn't appropriate.

      But if the goal is to actually design a new battery, maybe the manufacturing guy would be useful, helping to avoid potential designs that would have issues in terms of scaling up.

  14. That's true by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

    Agreed. However, most of the questions did ask some form of the question "when will it be ready" and he answered the same way each time.

    In keeping with the spirit of the earlier post, wouldn't it be nice if politicians did that too?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  15. That's how it works by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This guy seemed to be "Well, we figured out how it works, but I'm done now, somebody else has to figure out how to make more than the 2 prototypes I spent 4 years making in the lab."

    Just to give you something to consider, here is a picture of the very first transistor.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  16. Re: I would have guessed transliterated from Germa by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0

    No it does not. Knecht in its oldest meaning was a young man, somewhat later a squire. Around 1300 the word was demoted to indentured servant, nowadays it means a farm worker. Gut as a noun means estate or manor which sort of reaffirms the farm worker meaning. The only reason why there is some doubt is that an s is missing that would normally connect the two words, but who knows how old the surname is. Rules were more flexible back in the day and there is also a matter of many many German dialects

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  17. Great Q&A very relevant answers by jwillis84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really enjoyed the straight forward answers and the precise thought that went into them.

    1. The core solution being "dendrite" free plating of the anode and solid "not" liquid electrolyte

    2. The problem of current batteries being the "highly" flammable organic electrolyte

    3. The catastrophy being an exploit of dendrites discharging (due to a short circuit) so fast the electrolyte is "ignited"

    4. The direct point about the new Patent lawyers "being" more competent than before, and "exclusive" licensing being deliberately "eliminated"

    5. He did not bury the Sodium battery tech that will follow up two years [after] this hits the market.. which will be almost immediate.. its just a matter of ramp up

    6. He was flat out honest that the [key] was new plating tech.. that did not exist.. before.. that is what made the breakthrough possible.. it wasn't some random insight.. they knew exactly what the problem was all along.. it was a materials science problem.

    I was also taken by his generosity and personal interest in "changing the world" for the better.. without demonizing anything as it is currently done.. he is a spot on solid scientist first.. and a pretty dedicated one at that.

    The comment on energy density [never] eclipsing that of fossil fuels was also very honest.. but nevertheless practical.. seeing as how its a lot easier to transport electromotive force over long distances than messy fossil fuels.. and to maintain machines that convert that potential into kinetic energy at high efficiencies "much much" easier.. than the "chemical manufacturing plants on wheels".

    He deftly moved from topic to topic like a political "Wizard" unseen since Richard Feynman's days.

    1. Re:Great Q&A very relevant answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He deftly moved from topic to topic like a political "Wizard" unseen since Richard Feynman's days.

      He had about two weeks to edit his responses, and nothing was asked that was above undergraduate level. Let's hold back on comparing him to Feynman just for now.

  18. Re:Question? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

    Some are just weird, like Naaktgeboren (born naked)

    Born Clothed would have been stranger.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  19. Not knowing a language isn't malicious. New Americ by raymorris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    > some malicious ignorance against immigrants to America.

    Did you just say that for an American to not know German is MALICIOUS?! Wow.

    Once upon a time, most immigrants coming to America wanted to become part of America. They came here to become Americans, not to impose the ways of their old country on America. If they wanted to live like a German person, in a place like Germany, they could simply stay in Germany! My ancestors are an example. I'm an American. My great-father was a German, until he became an American and raised his kids as Americans. Same with my other great-father, he was Scots-Irish before he decided to become an American.

    A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend who moved here from Pakistan. He recently brought his wife here and they are making a point of getting out and doing things around town, meeting local people, trying local food, hearing local music, etc. Why? "Because she's an American now!", he proclaimed.

    Entering a country waiving the flag of the country you're coming from and insisting that the people there learn your language and customs is traditionally known as "invasion", not "immigration".

  20. Another question: Cold weather batteries (and hot) by neurocutie · · Score: 2

    Another question that I would have liked to see address: Prospects for much better cold weather (and hot weather) battery performance.
    If we are to replace IC vehicles with electric vehicles, we need batteries that be perform well at -20F or colder. Also 130F or hotter. What can be done to span a greater range of real-world operating temperatures?

  21. Re:Not knowing a language isn't malicious. New Ame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a special snowflake you are to get all butthurt that not everyone wants to conform to your particular norm.

  22. What race cars are you using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I would assume that it would be much easier to manufacture conventional 12 V starter batteries in volume due to the ability to put them in many more different models of vehicles. The ability to shave off 30+ pounds of weight from race cars would be enormous, so the demand is there, but why not the supply?

    As you noted, weight is a premium in race cars. This is why cars in most race tiers don't have starter motors - instead they are started by external cranking or they get push started.

  23. Re:Not knowing a language isn't malicious. New Ame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa knee jerk trigger word reactionary much?

    and to the mods: Offtopic is -1 folks

  24. Re: I would have guessed transliterated from Germa by OrangeTide · · Score: 0

    What do you think a knight is if not a servant. A simple bit of research on your part would have revealed that "knight" and "Knecht" come from the same common origin. Both meant, at one time, young man, boy, servant, page, etc. English's Knight and German's Knecht in the middle ages and later likely had very different meanings. The forms of the words in the two languages (more like 5-8) are very old and because words change over time they diverged. An English knight has a very specific meaning and we assign some very special connotations to it, but the old literal meaning of the two were identical.

    Old high German, Frisian, Dutch and even old Norwegian would have meanings for "gut"/"guot" that means "good". It diverges in the middle ages and mean a bunch of different things. Vowel shifts and regional dialects become important and you can't rely on the word matching the modern form when dealing with archaic forms of an old surname. If your surname was that you were a farm worker, it might be more typical to simply use bouwer, bauer, etc. All words for class/occupation of peasant, builder or farmhand.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  25. Re:Not knowing a language isn't malicious. New Ame by OrangeTide · · Score: 0

    Historically speaking, not being Anglo-Saxon Protestant is basically puts you into a second class. This persisted from the founding and into the 20th century. Arguably it persists today. If you recall, JFK was a bit of a revolution as President because while he was white and his family roots trace to the British Isles, they were not Protestant roots.

    Identifying with others a shared origin is about the most American thing you can do. Am I Scottish-American? Yet I've never been to Scotland, my parents have never been either. But we always have bagpipes at our funerals. It's a cultural heritage that I share with many Americans, and I am not an "invader" for keeping those traditions.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  26. Do you speak Scottish English and insist others do by raymorris · · Score: 0

    Do you speak Scottish English (or indeed Celtic Scots?) and insist that other Americans should learn Scottish pronouciation? Do your parents? Are people malicious (intending harm) of they speak American English rather than Scottish English?

    That's the allegation I responded to - that is malicious (~evil) for an American to have trouble pronouncing German words. In all likelihood, you pronounce an Americanized version of your own surname, just as Gutneckt becomes "Goodnight". In my case, my family in America pronounces "Morris" as you'd expect an American to, More-iss. (If unsure what I mean, check Youtube for my cousin, mega-church pastor Robert Morris and how he pronounces it). In Scotland, the name is more like mOatiys or moeddiys. The O, R, and I sounds are all different than American English. We don't think you're evil for saying "more iss".

  27. Sodium vs Lithium by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    While I didn't understand all the technical details, I thought it was fantastic that he presented that level of detail. Thank you!

    I am curious about the sodium vs lithium characteristics, as he mentioned them several times. He stated the sodium discharge rate is 0.3 V less than lithium (three times, to be exact). What exactly does this mean? Would a sodium battery have to be larger / heavier than a lithium ion to generate the same voltage? Does it mean it cannot charge or discharge as fast? I'm just curious what the ramifications are. For many applications, like storage of solar generated power in a home, size and weight is not an issue at all. If sodium based batteries are cheaper and safer, even if they were double the size, they would still win out in that application.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Sodium vs Lithium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discharge "rate" is not what he said. The discharge voltage he was talking about is not a measurement of any sort of rate.

      Sodium having 0.3V less discharge voltage than lithium is easier to "get", if you consider other chemistries.

      Each battery chemistry has an expected output voltage per cell under charged and open-circuit condition (measure voltage with volt-meter)
      Nickel Cadmium is 1.2-ish
      Primary (meant for one use only) alkalines 1.5-ish
      Lead-acid 2.1-ish (12 volt car batteries are 6 of them in series.)
      Lithium 3.2 or 3.7-ish depending on type.

      I think he meant that replacing Lithium with Sodium (and fixing the other bits of the battery to match) in one of these battery chemistries would reduce the voltage on the output of the battery by 0.3V.

      So you'd need more cells to get the same output voltage, but the rest of your questions are harder to answer than I have time for. I'd have to work out the energy density (to work out size question) and/or specific power (to work out weight question) of sodium batteries (which are very uncommon, and thus hard for the Anonymous Coward to test in his/her spare time)

    2. Re:Sodium vs Lithium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just your basic high-school electrochemical potential stuff. Sodium simply has a smaller electrochemical potential (-2.7V) than Lithium (-3.0V).

      BTW, regarding other AC's comment, a fully charged Li-Ion battery under open-circuit conditions actually generates about 4.2V. 3.7V is the nominal voltage over the discharge curve, which varies from about 3V to about 4.2V. So he's not being very precise there at all.

    3. Re:Sodium vs Lithium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the "-ish" I really wasn't certain of the numbers, but the idea still might have gotten through.

  28. Re:Another question: Cold weather batteries (and h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He does address this, partially. As he says above, solid electrolyte works at lower temperatures than liquid electrolyte.

  29. Re: I would have guessed transliterated from Germa by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0

    A knight is not a servant, it is a mounted warrior, hence Ritter, ridder, chevalier, caballero and so on. In every germanic and romance language the word for a knight has something to do with horses, only English is different.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  30. Re:Do you speak Scottish English and insist others by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    "... than with some malicious ignorance against immigrants to America."

    I understand now, you have a reading comprehension problem. The statement indicates it was NOT malicious. I was not claiming it was malicious, although I am sure that some people will claim there has historically been malicious treatment of immigrants. I did not offer a specific example nor made such a claim.

    You should let it go, because I have no desire to debate your misunderstanding.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  31. I see what you mean, dick by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > "... than with some malicious ignorance against immigrants to America."
    > I understand now, you have a reading comprehension problem. ...
    > I was not claiming it was malicious

    I see what you mean. I also see that you're being a dick, for no apparent reason.

  32. Re:Another question: Cold weather batteries (and h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Engines have cooling systems. Engines is very cold climates have heating systems. There is no reason batteries can't similarly be heated and cooled beyond the ambient temp of their environment.

  33. There are several innovative ideas for better batt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But will they b goodenough? And if they are, will they be eveready?