Australian Scientists Figure Out How Zinc-Air Batteries Can Replace Lithium-Ion Batteries (gizmodo.com.au)

Researchers at the University of Sydney has figured out how to solve one of the biggest problems standing in the way for zinc-air batteries to replace lithium-ion batteries. The reason zinc batteries are so sought after is because they're powered by zinc metal -- the 24th most abundant element in Earth's crust. Not only are they cheaper to produce than lithium-ion batteries, they can theoretically store five times more energy, are much safer and environmentally friendly. The problem with zinc batteries stems around them being difficult to charge because of the lack of electrocatalysts needed to reduce and generate oxygen during the discharging and charging of a battery. labnet shares a report from Gizmodo: "Up until now, rechargeable zinc-air batteries have been made with expensive precious metal catalysts, such as platinum and iridium oxide. In contrast, our method produces a family of new high-performance and low-cost catalysts." These new catalysts are produced through the simultaneous control of the composition, size and crystallinity of metal oxides of earth-abundant elements like iron, cobalt and nickel. They can then be applied to build rechargeable zinc-air batteries. Researcher Dr Li Wei, also from the University's Faculty of Engineering and Information Technologies, said trials of zinc-air batteries developed with the new catalysts had demonstrated "excellent rechargeability" -- including less than a 10 percent battery efficacy drop over 60 discharging/charging cycles of 120 hours. The research was published in the journal Advanced Materials.

Comments

Five times

[Anonymous Coward]

Surrre.

Pretty much have an electric bomb at that point.

Re: Five times

[Anonymous Coward]

Li-ion are already bombs.

Re:Five times

[thesupraman]

Yes, I know you are just trolling, however..

The actual amount of electrical energy in a battery is generally not a major hazard - the issue with LiIon batteries is much more closely related to the use of Lithium in a state that can then continue and amplify the reaction (the energy is not minor, however the two together is the major hazard). That is why the energy in a car lead acid (starting, not electric drive..) battery is not much of a concern in a crash - there is a ton of it, and it can discharge strongly (enough to melt steel), however it tends to do so in a way that doesnt create a sustained high temperature fire.

The issues with this research however are more likely to surround what is not said.
10% loss after 60 cycles is not particularly great - however that is a low number - does is stabilize or accelerate to a quick death?
What does the self-discharge curve and time look like? (that is often a major factor).
What is the discharge voltage curve like?

The headline is f course throwaway - nothing of the sort is claimed.

The safety issue of LiIon is already solved, LiFePO4 batteries are better in almost every way, however have a minor weight/size penalty.
They last many more cycles, have a better charge/discharge voltage curve, react much less violently to failure, etc.
Of course since they would cost just a bit more, no one talks about them - since then, you know, they may actually be pushed in to consumer devices..
We couldn't have that.. you cannot compromise profitability with safety!

Re:Five times

[skids]

Still have some of those old A123 B&D VPX batteries going strong. They'll probably outlast the toolset... the vac is already dead. Though the pack that fell under my car seat and was presumed lost for an entire new england winter didn't fair so well.

I was kinda expecting NiMH-LSD to take off for stationary uses once Li-ion started eating it's lunch in the portable market, but the UPS makers stuck with lead acid for so long that they've now leapfrogged to Li-ion (and it's still a tiny sliver vs. the lead acid share of the market.) It seems to have clung on in the single-cell AA/AAA market just due to no need to step down the voltage.

Re: Five times

[Rei]

Properly managed li-ions are perfectly safe.

Re:Five times

[Rei]

10% loss after 60 cycles is actually terrible. Hopefully they can improve that by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude.

Energy density is not the issue. The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same as its ICE competitors in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc). Energy density comes in at fourth on the list of EV battery priorities. #1 is cost. #2 is durability. #3 is recharging speed (both ion mobility and efficiency, the latter determining heat removal requirements during fast charge). Energy density is fourth. Ranges already can be increased far over what they are today, but there's no point because you price the vehicle out of their class. Cost is still king; the size of the market is very heavily dependent on what batteries cost. And if they're not durable, you can't back them with a solid warranty, and people won't buy your cars.

Re:Five times

[ChrisMaple]

I'm no expert, but since air is used like fuel for this battery, shutting off the air supply ought to prevent self-discharge.

My concern with this new battery is that they're using a 120 hour cycle time. That means they're discharging it at a rate that would be too slow for vehicle use. Whether that is actually a limitation of the battery is unstated.

Re:Five times

[Anonymous Coward]

If it can store 5 times as much energy, then that means fewer charging/discharging cycles over the same period of time. If it is also less expensive, it could work out...

Perhaps a 10% drop over a an average year's driving, coupled with a less expensive replacement cost.

Not to mention that 5 times more storage eliminates range anxiety.

Re:Five times

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy density is an issue for electric aircraft. The abstract says this battery has an energy density of 904 Wh per kg Zn. The question is now much the rest of the battery weighs - aircraft designers would like the whole system to have an energy density of at least 400 Wh per kg.
The Tesla model 3 sits at about 180 Wh/kg (if the numbers I found are correct - it is said to be 30% more energy dense than the 140 Wh/kg Model S).
Using Zn-air batteries in aircraft is more challenging than Li-ion because it needs to interact with actual air, which changes quite a bit in composition (mainly moisture content), pressure and temperature at differing altitudes. Big aircraft are also designed to be lighter at landing, while this battery will be heavier since it carries chemically bound oxygen.

Re:Five times

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy density is not the issue. The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same as its ICE competitors in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc)

Even if you are seriously going to argue that a Tesla Model 3 is a competitor to those cars (it's much more similar in refinement to a Dacia or a Hyundai), it's simply not true:
- BMW 3-Series: 1475kg
- Audi A4: 1395kg
- Mercedes C-class: 1395kg
- Tesla Model 3: 1740kg (claimed)

That's an enormous difference, even if we were to assume Tesla is not lying or being creative with facts for a change. 1740kg is a lot, even for a car as large as the Tesla Model 3.

It would be very welcome if battery densities increased a bit. Battery weight is the biggest impediment to range of electric cars at the moment. The lighter variety of the Model 3 still has a claimed range of less than half of the actual range of the cars you were comparing it against. Not a problem for all people, but it's definitely something that is keeping people away from electric cars at the moment. Additionally, having to charge batteries close to 100% and discharge them close to empty is currently also an impediment to battery longevity. Higher densities would allow for more margin and thus longer bettery lifetimes.

Re:Five times

[Rei]

it's much more similar in refinement to a Dacia or a Hyundai

Not according to literally every reveiwer who has been in in the vehicle, which is over a dozen. A base Model 3 is also more feature-rich than its competitors such as the 3-series (there are also comparisons to the A4 and C300 if you'd like)

Now, you can spout nonsense that doesn't correspond at all to any reviews, but that's not to your credit. Seriously, the concept that a soft-touch sports sedan with a 5,6 second *base* 0-60, eight cameras, a dozen ultrasonic sensors and a radar *standard*, automatic crash avoidance *standard*, and a ton of other things is equivalent to a Dacia... why not just call it a used Yugo while you're at it?

Tesla Model 3: 1740kg (claimed)

Wrong. The base curb weight of the Model 3, according to the official press kit, is 3549 lbs, which is 1610kg. 1730kg is the LR version, the heavier version. The BMW 3-Series ranges from 1475-1770kg. The A4 ranges from 1410-1695 kg. I can't find an official total range for the C300, but find values ranging from 1630 kg to 1688kg to 1695kg to 1715kg. While the 1630kg is described as the "base weight" (analogous to the M3's 1610kg), I have no clue what the heaviest C300 config is, there could easily be configurations heavier than the 1715kg one.

To sum up:
Tesla Model 3: 1610-1730kg
BMW 3-Series: 1475-1770kg
Audi A4: 1410-1695kg
Mercedes C300: 1630-1715+kg

I'll repeat: The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same as its ICE competitors in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc).

Re:Five times

[Rei]

As for reviews, let's go down the list. By all means, read the full reviews yourself.

Motor Trend:

What’s blanching, though, is the car’s ride and handling. If anybody was expecting a typical boring electric sedan here, nope. The ride is Alfa Giulia (maybe even Quadrifoglio)–firm, and quickly, I’m carving Stunt Road like a Sochi Olympics giant slalomer, micrometering my swipes at the apexes. I glance at Franz—this OK? “Go for it,” he nods. The Model 3 is so unexpected scalpel-like, I’m sputtering for adjectives. The steering ratio is quick, the effort is light (for me), but there’s enough light tremble against your fingers to hear the cornering negotiations between Stunt Road and these 235/40R19 tires (Continental ProContact RX m+s’s). And to mention body roll is to have already said too much about it. Sure, that battery is low, way down under the floor. But unlike the aluminum Model S, the Tesla Model 3 is composed of steel, too, and this car’s glass ceiling can’t be helping the center of gravity’s height. Nearly-nil body roll? Magic, I’m telling you. Magic. And this is the single-motor, rear-wheel-drive starting point. The already boggled mind boggles further at the mention of Dual Motor and Ludicrous.

Top Gear:

Gone are the Model S’s projecting doorhandles in favour of nicely crafted aluminium ones that project manually like those on an Aston when you poke one end. Open the door and slide in, and the interior is beautifully simple and uncluttered. The steering wheel features two buttons that adjust everything from the traditional (volume, radio frequency) to the more unique (door mirror adjustment and steering wheel positioning).
***
The car we drove was a Long Range model with all the options list ticked, including the Premium Upgrade Package, featuring leather seats (base models come with fabric), a wooden dash inlay panel that spans the width of the cockpit and the aforementioned glass roof that infuses the interior with a huge feeling of light and space. It’s all simple, elegant, uncluttered and nicely crafted. Before we set off, I jumped in the back and with the driver seat positioned for my 6ft frame, there was still plenty of room in the back for three adults.
***
Our short foray highlighted that the Model 3’s quoted 0–60mph time of 5.1 seconds in this Long Range spec might be underplaying its performance a bit: it’s rapid, and the acceleration is delivered with that lovely linearity and unwavering torque that EVs deliver. The overall feeling of peace and quiet is helped by the minimalist interior but by impressive sound deadening and insulation – the road noise is minimal.

The Verge:

I felt like I was driving in an Eames chair. That was my first impression as I climbed into the driver’s seat of the Tesla Model 3 at the Fremont Factory on Friday afternoon. It took a moment to orient myself — no gauges, no speedometer, no airplane cockpit cues. Instead, one continuous smooth line between myself and the road ahead, offset by natural, unfinished wood. The premium model of the Model 3 caught me off guard. After hearing so much hype about this car, I was surprised that my first reaction was a profound sense of delight. It wasn’t bland, nor sterile, nor cheap feeling. Here was something different. Here was an exercise in minimalism. Here was the car Elon Musk promised to make 14 years ago.

Re: Five times

[Anonymous Coward]

Improperly managed lions are very dangerous.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24115251
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-lion-attacks-tamer-circus-video-footage-slash-throat-a7726386.html
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/sea-lion-drags-girl-into-water-off-steveston-docks-in-richmond-b-c-1.4125848

Re:Five times

[naughtynaughty]

It's a good thing gasoline doesn't lead to car fires daily

Re:Five times

[gweihir]

10% over 60 cycles means it is a viable candidate to put more research effort into. This is not a finished product and obviously, there are many issues to solve. This is a pretty good incremental research result though because getting rid of the expensive catalysts.

As to capacity increase, I gather the 500% storage increase is naked Li vs. naked Zn. In practice that will more likely boil down to 50...100% more capacity, but that is already pretty nice. And, of course, at least 10 years (probably more) research will be needed before such a product can go into production. All pretty standard, nothing to get really excited about, just means some pretty smart people are still going at the problem and making progress.

Re:Five times

[gweihir]

For a first working demo it it pretty good. Nobody sane expects a research prototype to match an industrial product.

Re:Five times

[gweihir]

It is a research prototype, not a finished product. They wanted to demonstrate that their new catalyst works, everything else is secondary here.

But Zinc is supported by Neo-Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how can we use it when we must destroy all Zinc?

Affordability

[freeze128]

Those tiny little hearing-aid batteries are EXPENSIVE. It doesn't matter if they're capable of storing more energy... If they are not affordable, nobody will buy them.

Why aren't hearing-aid batteries li-ion?

Re:Affordability

[Anonymous Coward]

Safety.

Re:Affordability

[LynnwoodRooster]

Energy density. Zinc air batteries are 5-10X the energy density of other chemistries. It's really the only reasonable way to do a CIC hearing aid with more than 24 hours of run-time.

Re:Affordability

[Gabest]

What is not expensive when it comes to healthcare?

Re:Affordability

[Gussington]

Prevention

Re:Affordability

[FrankHaynes]

Hows abouts the old carbon-zinc primary batteries? I mean, it's got zinc in it also.

Re:Affordability

[LynnwoodRooster]

Battery energy densities Zn-C is about 1/6th that of Zinc-Air. The density of energy in a zinc-air battery greatly eclipses any other battery technology today...

Re:Affordability

[h33t l4x0r]

Sure, preventing health care would have been inexpensive but it's probably too late for that. Thanks, Obama.

Re:Affordability

[Applehu Akbar]

Those tiny little hearing-aid batteries are EXPENSIVE.

That's because hearing aids are regulated as medical devices. It has nothing to do with the batteries being zinc-air.

Re:Affordability

[martinfb]

Eh? What's ya say?

Of Course!

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out that they were putting them in upside-down.

The battery cartels will kill this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they want to make less money? They'll buy this up, and let it collect dust.

LESS TALK - MORE WALK!

[Anonymous Coward]

on the wild side!

Excellent rechargability?

[Spy Handler]

less than a 10 percent battery efficacy drop over 60 discharging/charging cycles of 120 hours

How does this compare to current lithium batteries? I thought my phone's battery was better (I heard like 100 recharges without any significant drop)

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[nachtelfjeiu]

This is our monthly "revolutionary battery" news item. There's always something wrong. Too big, too heavy, too few charge cycles, too slow to charge, too expensive, etc. The batteries never actually get practically produced. The purpose of these news items is for the research group to get funding. Don't expect anything from this as a consumer.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, but I assume that with 5 times the capacity you'll have to charge 5 times less often.

Though in reality, phones will likely end up with a battery 5 times smaller. But the phone will be 1mm thinner..

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, that's how technological advances usually happen. Slow, incremental improvements.

It's very rare that big technological jumps happen, sure the articles always blow it out of proportion, but news like this is good because it shows another avenue that is available to pursue.

Meanwhile, batteries keep getting better in the background, fast, but slow enough that we don't notice the constant improvement.

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Expense is application relevant. 4 times the price for double the performance is ok if you are talking about cars or aircraft, but not home solar. Cycle count is important as is environmental degradation and the latter seems to be the big thing for new solar PV panel chemistry. If Zn or Al based batteries can be made workable with just double the Li energy density then that's a revolutionary tipping point. We are already so close with Li but not quite there... and Li has had huge revolutionary advances too that are in production now.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

At this stage it's a case of being impressed with the fact that the bear can dance, not how well it dances. The Li technology is improving all the time too, but incrementally rather than revolutionary change.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[viperidaenz]

A charge/discharge cycle of 120 hours is pretty slow.
Let's say you need a 120kWh battery for your car to go 500 miles.
To cover 500 miles in 60 hours, you need to be going around 8MPH. Not very quick for a car. That's assuming you can also keep the peak current draw under C/60, or 2kW. You could probably move a car at 8MPH with a 2Kw motor.... Not very useful for a car.

The point here is batteries tend to wear out quicker as you put in to take out more current.
I would be impressed if they did 60 charge/discharge cycles in 120 hours, not 120 hours per cycle.

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Gussington]

This is our monthly "revolutionary battery" news item. There's always something wrong.

Except in the case where it's right such as NiMH and LiPo...

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Ol Olsoc]

This is our monthly "revolutionary battery" news item. There's always something wrong. Too big, too heavy, too few charge cycles, too slow to charge, too expensive, etc.

If we could only have less news about technology in it's early stages We must eliminate the media telling us anything until the technology is well and truly proven with a track record.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[Obfuscant]

I would be impressed if they did 60 charge/discharge cycles in 120 hours, not 120 hours per cycle.

Be impressed. From TFA:

The rechargeability of the battery was tested for 60 discharging/charging cycles (1 h each step) at 10 mA cm-2 continuously.

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the Evil Scientist Conglomerate, hell bent on world domination with diabolically crafted hoaxes like global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, honeybee population decline and moon landings, among other things, in order to suck up always more grant money from the world's helpless and totally not evil governements and corporations.

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[thegarbz]

Aside from the "never actually get practically produced" bit, you've just described the media around every battery ever created since the dawn of electricity.

I most certainly do expect something from it. I do often with promising research. If you want to feel silly start looking at Slashdot articles talking about revolutionary batteries like LiFePo4 from 15+ years ago, and then laugh at all the posts like yours claiming we'll never see them and it's just researchers wanting more funding.

Because you know the best way of not getting something? Don't fund it.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

400 to 1200 cycles according to Wikipedia. Largely dependent on chemistry and usage. Though, battery life is still a bit of an unknown as you really need to test a large number of cells to the point of failure under different conditions to get reliable data and manufacturers tend to go to the point of 'good enough' and just ship the things as it can take significant amounts of time to do this kind of testing. There are a fair number of people claiming to have gotten 3000+ cycles and counting out of their car batteries...

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[CptLoRes]

Baby steps. Someone has to push the envelope even if the results are far from perfect. This is the only was to get a true "revolutionary battery" for consumers in our lifetime. Point in case. Lithium batteries where invented in the late 70s, but it was only relatively recently that we figured out how to mass produced them cheaply enough for consumer products. So the current state of the art battery technology is actually older then most people in here.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[AmiMoJo]

The cells Panasonic makes for Tesla cars are rated for 3000 cycles. Standard lifetime for batteries is the point at which they retain less than 80% of their original capacity.

Phone batteries tend to be closer to 500 cycles, which is why they are usually noticeably degraded after a couple of years, or even 18 months for heavy users.

However, the other factor to consider is how easy it is to manufacture, repair and replace a given type of battery. If you can restore lost capacity just by adding water, say, it's not such an issue if it only lasts 50 cycles.

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Rei]

Not really. A while back, the big story on Slashdot, the story was silicon anodes. Guess what? Tesla uses them in at least some, if not all, of their battery packs.

The announcement generates hype. The commercialization does not. Most announcements ultimately don't pan out, but those that do change the world - but those changes quickly become our "new normal" and we forget about what a big deal they were. Look at old cell phones and the size of the batteries it took versus the more humble power demands they were facing. And be thankful that the pace of technology advances marches on.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[Hodr]

Keep in mind the phrasing. It didn't say 60 charge/discharge cycles of the battery, it sais 60 120 hour charge/discharge cycles. How many times did they charge/discharge the cells in 120 hours? Even the slowest of slow charging batteries I have seen are 1/10C, so 20 hours for a full cycle. So maybe the minimum here is actually 1200 full battery cycles for 10 percent. Sounds good in that light.

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[gweihir]

That comparison is completely meaningless. This is a research prototype that serves to show the new catalyst is viable, nothing else. Nobody with a clue will compare this to an industrial product.

Re: Excellent rechargability?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for my Zinc-Copper-Potato batteries to power my damn rail-gun. World-domination just out of reach...

Re:Excellent rechargability?

[samwichse]

From the article:

The rechargeability of the battery was tested for 60 discharging/charging cycles (1 h each step) at 10 mA cm-2 continuously.

So they did do 60 charge/discharge cycles. Each half of the cycle was 1 hour (ie 1C) for a total test time of 120 hours.

Sam

Learn your chemistry, journalists!

[Anonymous Coward]

"simultaneous control of the composition, size and crystallinity of metal oxides" sounds expensive. Like a lot more expensive than some lithium.
Furthermore, "earth-abundant elements like iron, cobalt and nickel" is rather bullshit*. While Iron is certainly abundant, Nickel isn't really - it's sort of middle-ish, and Cobalt is already rare enough to be a major cost for the existing lithium batteries.

Another piece of what passes for journalism.

*unless by Earth-Abundant, you mean, "Abundant in Earth's Core, where you will never reach it."

Re:Learn your chemistry, journalists!

[crunchygranola]

Let us look up some actual data about cobalt rather than rely on a random AC's notions.

The bottom line is that world production is 124,000 tons of cobalt, and proven reserves are 7.2 million tons, or a 60 year supply. It is important to understand what "proven reserves" means - it is a very conservative estimate of the known supplies that can be profitably extracted at current prices. These figures are always much lower than what could be called "ultimate reserves". According to the USGS report: "Identified world terrestrial cobalt resources are about 25 million tons", or a 200 year supply based on what is known on land. But: "More than 120 million tons of cobalt resources have been identified in manganese nodules and crusts on the floor of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans." which takes us up to a 1000 year supply.

No, cobalt is quite abundant for the requirements placed upon it.

For comparison the reserves for all platinum group metals combined total just 66,000 tons.

Re:Learn your chemistry, journalists!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sea floor mining ?...... riiiiiight.
What is Howard Hughes up to now ?

Is there a non-paywalled link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or has /. been reduced to marketing hype articles for the technically illiterate?

After A Cup of Coffee, I Wonder

[LifesABeach]

for everything from phones to hearing aids, sounds interesting. does this scale up? is elon musk going to fly over to the land done under and take a look? will gray chinese types hack into the educator's computer systems to learn what they could just read over at the journal advanced materials? but i have a serious question, "did these educators use Linux?"

Re:After A Cup of Coffee, I Wonder

[Gussington]

will gray chinese types hack into the educator's computer systems to learn what they could just read over at the journal advanced materials?

Probably already done, and the factories are already being tooled up. Most of the Universities in Sydney are filled with Chinese students anyway, no hacks are not required...

Re:After A Cup of Coffee, I Wonder

[Gavagai80]

will gray chinese types hack into the educator's computer

The educator/inventor you're talking may be Chinese himself, you know. He's listed as "Member of China Studies Centre", collaborates with Chinese universities, and has a Chinese name... though it looks like he studied in Singapore so maybe he's just ethnically Chinese. But who cares? Patents slow progress, I hope various countries steal and develop the tech.

Re:After A Cup of Coffee, I Wonder

[LifesABeach]

guys, are you seeing the irony here? china has burned hundreds of millions of dollars on cornering the worlds lithium market. then some chinese guy goes to australia and you know he was offered a can of fosters by a clone of Barry McKenzie. then what comes out of this guys mouth is, "i think we can build a better battery using stuff we can pick up off the ground, lets tell everybody, CHEERS!"

Premature question.

[Anonymous Coward]

They just demonstrated their method in the lab for the first time, what does it matter how it compares to something that is already refined and on the market for ages? What matters is the potential!

When

[Sla$hPot]

Is it actually going to happen?

Re:When

[AHuxley]

When the costs of rare earth changes again?
When rare earth gets export controls for some reason?
Other battery chemistry gives the world the ability to escape set prices and political export controls imposed by a few producers.

Re:When

[WalksOnDirt]

The costs of rare earths? How do they figure into this?

Zinc air batteries don't use rare earths but neither do lithium ion batteries. NiMH do but they are not being discussed.

Re:When

[gweihir]

10-50 years in the future. If it pans out. Pretty standard time-frame for this sort of thing.

They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[pcjunky]

If they lose 10% in 60 cycles, they would be near useless after 500 cycles. Lithium Ion batteries are at least twice as long lived. I have cell phone batteries that still are above 90% after two years.

Re:They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[Anonymous Coward]

You lack imagination and bring shame to Famiry

Zinc air batteries will make a 500 mile car. And fantastic stationary backup for intermittent renwable sources

Re:They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[slack_justyb]

If they lose 10% in 60 cycles

Careful there, because not all cycles are created equal. It's indicated that they got 120 hours in a single cycle. So if we assume that we lose 10% for every 60 cycles, that's still sum(60*120*(1-n*10%),n = 0 -> 9). That's 39600 hours.or 4.5 years of usage. However, for a multiple number of reasons, I doubt this will see light anytime soon in a phone. There's a lot of lingering questions as to if it scales and what kind of self discharge these things are look at to name a few.

Re:They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[Gussington]

If they lose 10% in 60 cycles, they would be near useless after 500 cycles. Lithium Ion batteries are at least twice as long lived. I have cell phone batteries that still are above 90% after two years.

Is this a problem?
Remember when a phone lasted a week on battery, then the iPhone came out and lasted a day and everyone said that was rubbish? People adapted because the benefits outweighed the issues.
If you give me a battery with 5 times capacity but only lasts 1/4 as long I think I can live with that. Especially when the used product is more recyclable and it is less toxic to produce.

Re:They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[Obfuscant]

that's still sum(60*120*(1-n*10%),n = 0 -> 9). That's 39600 hours.or 4.5 years of usage.

You're off by a factor of 60. Sixty cycles over 120 hours total, not 60 cycles at 120 hours each. That makes it 27 days.

Re:They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[gweihir]

Now take the first Li-Ion prototype where the current catalysts were demonstrated and compare that. Then you get something approaching a fair comparison.

Re:They would last only about 2 to 3 years

[slack_justyb]

Must have read it wrong, could of sworn it indicated 120 hours per cycle.

24th most abundant element?

[viperidaenz]

It's right next to Lithium, which is the 25th.

The abundance of the active material in a battery has almost nothing to do with the cost of production.

It's all the other shit that goes into it, along with the production process.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[Gussington]

It's right next to Lithium, which is the 25th.

That isn't really enough information to make a call. The 24th most abundant could be 1.01x more abundant , or it could be 1000x more abundant than the 25th.
Effort to extract, and environmental impact are probably more important metrics.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[dfsmith]

Here you go. According to the link, Zn is about 75ppm and Li 20ppm in the Earth's crust.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[sl3xd]

For which Zinc has a good thing going: it's so cheap we use it for everything, and so easy to refine and reuse its been used since antiquity.
.
Zinc costs $0.20 for 100g; at a similar purity, 100g of lithium is nearly $10

Being ~50x less expensive, and being much easier to use are pretty big wins for Zinc.

Zinc batteries are nothing new - it's in the same alkaline batteries we've been abusing for generations.

So 2x the power density and 50x cheaper? That can be historic.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[viperidaenz]

Also depends where in the crust you're looking
"Upper crust" Li is 22ppm, Zn is 52ppm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you're looking in seawater Li is 0.17ppm, Zn is 0.011ppm

Re:24th most abundant element?

[Khyber]

"Zinc batteries are nothing new - it's in the same alkaline batteries we've been abusing for generations."

And the reason we keep using them for disposable batteries instead of rechargeable ones is that zinc historically sucks at being recharged.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[viperidaenz]

Zinc loves sacrificing itself that way. It's hard to undo it.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[sl3xd]

And if we can make even semi-decent rechargible zinc cells, it's a major win.

At the end of the day, every battery needs to be replaced; lithium isn't a magic bullet.

I'm not sure I care if I have to replace five zinc batteries after a hundred cycles each, or one lithium battery that lasts 500.

If it costs less overall, and you get twice the energy density, why not use zinc?

Re:24th most abundant element?

[Rei]

Careful, lithium-ion batteries aren't made using metallic lithium as a feedstock. You need to compare lithium carbonate or nitrate, and weigh the lithium fraction thereof. Refining costs to metal shouldn't factor in, because it's not refined to metal.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[cnaumann]

Zinc is also about 10X heavier than lithium on a per-atom basic. So on a per-atom basis, lithium is actually more abundant than zinc and only 5X as expensive.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[Khyber]

"And if we can make even semi-decent rechargible zinc cells, it's a major win."

We made them, and they were a major loss, with horrid energy density (although the 1.6 nominal cell voltage was nice to have, they couldn't match the Amp-hours of Ni-MH) and only lasted about 40 charge cycles before going to utter shit and not accepting a charge any longer. They are called PowerGenix batteries.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[sl3xd]

There were also the Rayovac "renewal" batteries. Rayovac even hired Michael Jordan as the spokesman. (I wonder how much he was paid to do those ads...) I even have a charger for he "renewal" batteries. I keep it around because it charges NiMH and NiCd cells.

I wouldn't call those renewable alkalines semi-decent.

It doesn't sound like you hold them in high regard either.

But if the Aussies have figured out a major improvement... that could change things.

Re:24th most abundant element?

[Khyber]

They probably moved to a solid composition instead of a semi-liquid composition to avoid whiskering, but that won't solve it entirely.

Sibling Rivalry!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Li Wei be the new Li Po.

Next step: inversion

[Mal-2]

The next step is figuring out how to make them work when held right-side-up like half the planet is going to do.

Real problem with Zinc

[Khyber]

Looks like these guys didn't learn from PowerGenix and their nickel-zinc batteries.

The problem with every fucking zinc battery is that it WHISKERS LIKE MAD when you discharge/recharge it.

Stop the micro/nano-structures which form nilly-willy on the Zinc side of things after the battery has been manufactured and put into use, and you literally solve the charge degradation problem, charge cycle count problem, and the variable energy density problem all in one go.

Now how do you stop the Zinc from whiskering?

Re:Real problem with Zinc

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone's thought of just giving the zinc a good WHACK once in a while? Make batteries with a spring-loaded plunger on one end... every so often just crank that sucker up and hit a button to release, crushing the zinc anode (cathode?) and breaking up those whiskers.

As you can see I haven't even been arsed to look up which role zinc plays in the cell.. but wouldn't it be funny if the solution was mechanical, not chemical, nano-tech or quantum-physics voodoo? :)

Re:Real problem with Zinc

[FrankHaynes]

I thought whiskers were the big problem with NiCad batteries, also? Battery conditioner equipment was supposed to reverse that, or maybe just arrest it for a time. A ham radio buddy used to take a 12 Volt power supply and zap the crap out of NiCad AA cells in order to de-whiskerize them, but I'm not sure how effective that was.

Alas, I have no solution for your whisker problem.

Re:Real problem with Zinc

[Khyber]

Whiskering also happens with Ni-MH batteries as well. You can break the structures down with an applied voltage, at the cost of degrading the actual anode and cathode materials.I brought a dead (like 5 year old PKCELL) set of 4 Ni-MH AA back to life (tested originally at 0.2 volts each on a meter, they should've been fucked) with a hard slam of 24V @ 1.25A for a few seconds, and suddenly they took a charge again, and held that charge, but heavily reduced capacity.

The cross-section of those cells was QUITE revealing. Almost looked like microcrystalline stibnite grew inside the cell.

Re:Real problem with Zinc

[Anonymous Coward]

easy. let zinc transition from being a boy element to a girl element. girls dont have whiskers!!!!!! also, the batteries wont become waste, cause GIRLS DONT POOP!!!

Re:Real problem with Zinc

[Rei]

Solid electrolytes are a big promising tech in this front, where you have an ion-conductive glass that functions both as electrolyte and separator membrane. The separator is harder than the dendrites and so there's little damage during charge / discharge.

I'm sure dendrites will be overcome eventually. And that will help a lot of different techs, not just zinc (lithium metal is also bad with dendrites).

Re:Real problem with Zinc

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Fluidic Energy, they seem to have solved it.

This needs to be the first of many discoveries.

[azav]

including less than a 10 percent battery efficacy drop over 60 discharging/charging cycles of 120 hours.

10% drop over 60 charges?

That's not good.

Re:This needs to be the first of many discoveries.

[Jeremi]

10% drop over 60 charges? That's not good.

Certainly it would be better if it degraded less, and I hope they can improve things, but it's not necessarily a showstopper as it is, either.

Consider that in many use cases, a battery is almost never fully cycled. For example, my cell phone rarely gets below 30% charged, simply because I plug it in every night. If the 10%/60 figure is for full discharge/recharge cycles, then the battery's real-world longevity might be significantly better than that. (and that's not even counting the fact that charge indicators often lie to you, saying that the device is at 0% charge when it actually has some charge left, precisely to avoid reducing the battery life by doing a literal full discharge)

Re:This needs to be the first of many discoveries.

[Anonymous Coward]

60 charges with 120 hours per charge, thats 300 days, which really isn't bad.

Re:This needs to be the first of many discoveries.

[gweihir]

That's not good.

That is a first research prototype demonstrating the catalyst works. Are you people all unable to understand what is described here?

Let's go mining

[Trogre]

...earth-abundant elements like iron, cobalt and nickel.

Damn, I was hoping we could shut down those dodgy cobalt mines that exploit child labour.

Re:Let's go mining

[bugs2squash]

Anything with significant amounts of cobalt in it doesn't sound that environmentally friendly

Re:Let's go mining

[WalksOnDirt]

It's supposed to be part of the catalyst. Unless they are misusing the term the amounts used should be quite small. A small amount of platinum matters, cobalt not so much.

Re:Let's go mining

[Rei]

Most people's impression when they hear cobalt is off because they think of cobalt 60, a radioisotope. But while it has some toxicity, it's not actually that toxic among metals, particularly when not in the form of soluble salts. Cobalt is even used as a major alloying agent in orthopedic and dental implants; it's not allergenic like nickel. As for the broader envirnonment, cobalt deficiency is much more common in soils than excess. Cobalt-deficient soils lead to a shortage of B12 in animals that graze there (B12 is a cobalt-based vitamin).

Re:Let's go mining

[Rei]

You do realize that cobalt is found pretty much everywhere on Earth where nickel and copper are mined, don't you? It's historically been recovered most from the DRC because they have the richest deposits, but with prices rising from increased demand, it becomes justifiable to work recovery into the tailings streams of the majority of nickel and copper mines the world over.

Re:Let's go mining

[Maury Markowitz]

This is the reason for *Cobalt, Ontario* for instance. It was a silver mining area.

Discharge

[chainsaw1]

Self discharge is directly related to oxygen (or water) contact with zinc. The better you can seal out the zinc from atmosphere and spills when not in use the longer it'll last. Self discharge in zinc air is exactly the same reaction as preventing zinc metal from corroding--the electrons just take a longer path

No they won't

[fnj]

No they won't. Christ, how stupid do you think we are?

consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers all over the world, once again find out that they are STILL stuck with litium ion batterier forever and ever for some reason ... Despite thousands of alledged breakthroughs in new battery tech.

Wake me up when There are some actual new battery tech to be had by us average Joes!

Re: consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up when There are some actual new battery tech to be had by us average Joe.

OK. Will do. Now please sod off back to sleep and quit posting until I wake you.

Getting old

[conquistadorst]

I must have read a dozen articles over the past 5 years talking about folks have developed a new battery tech that's "game changing" better than current tech. News outlets love showcasing headlines but never followup on why these things don't pan out.

Re:Getting old

[gweihir]

The "game changer" parts are added by stupid journalists. What is really going on is that research goes into better rechargeables and there is progress.

That's not the problem

[Maury Markowitz]

"The problem with zinc batteries stems around them being difficult to charge because of the lack of electrocatalysts needed to reduce and generate oxygen during the discharging and charging of a battery."

That is not the problem. The problem with *every* rechargable battery that has "air" in the name is that air contains all sorts of nasty things the gum up the works after some time. Every xxx-air battery suffers from this, zinc-air, lithium-air, aluminum-air, etc.

The solution is some sort of filter that removes ALL of this, or an electrolyte that doesn't care. Neither is likely for very simple reasons.

Oh, no!

[OneHundredAndTen]

A battery breakthrough announced in this forum almost guarantees that said breakthrough will fizzle and will become completely forgotten within a few months.