Slashdot Mirror
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.
Now how can we use it when we must destroy all Zinc?
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?
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)
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
Someone had to do it.
Properly managed li-ions are perfectly safe.
Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
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...
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.
Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
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.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
The next step is figuring out how to make them work when held right-side-up like half the planet is going to do.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
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?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
...earth-abundant elements like iron, cobalt and nickel.
Damn, I was hoping we could shut down those dodgy cobalt mines that exploit child labour.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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
- Sig
No they won't. Christ, how stupid do you think we are?
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
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.
This space intentionally left blank
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!"
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.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
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?
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).
Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
As for reviews, let's go down the list. By all means, read the full reviews yourself.
Motor Trend:
Top Gear:
The Verge:
Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
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.
"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.
A battery breakthrough announced in this forum almost guarantees that said breakthrough will fizzle and will become completely forgotten within a few months.
It's a good thing gasoline doesn't lead to car fires daily
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For a first working demo it it pretty good. Nobody sane expects a research prototype to match an industrial product.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It is a research prototype, not a finished product. They wanted to demonstrate that their new catalyst works, everything else is secondary here.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
10-50 years in the future. If it pans out. Pretty standard time-frame for this sort of thing.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.