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

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?

[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?

[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: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!

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:Affordability

[Gussington]

Prevention

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

[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

[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).

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

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: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).