New Lithium batteries with 3 times the storage
Discussion
RayTay said:
Mr2Mike said:
Once again you are trying to use possible future developments as though they have already happened.
They have happened.They are just not on the market yet.RayTay said:
Mr2Mike said:
Once again you are trying to use possible future developments as though they have already happened.
They have happened.They are just not on the market yet.I too think EVs are the future, but frankly OP you come across as either deluded or a troll which does your arguments no credit at all.
RayTay said:
f course it is. The technology is here and feasible, which is the most important point. Getting it to market is lower brain power.
Nuclear fusion is well understood science. We know exactly how it happens, we can create the temperatures and pressures to make it happen. We understood all this in the 1950s. And yet, we still don't have fusion power stations.Quite often the basic physics is easy. Engineering that physics to be affordable, safe, and have a lifespan of more than a few minutes is actually the hard bit.
In the case of batteries and solar cells, there are all sorts of remarkable lab developments that have not made it to the market because they cannot be put into production affordably or safely.
Another example - we've had multi junction solar cells on spacecraft with 30 - 45% efficiency for decades. On earth, we're stuck at a pitiful 10 - 20% because making hi end cells work in atmospheric conditions is really expensive. Again, know the physics, bringing it to market defies us.
RayTay said:
rxe said:
Again, know the physics, bringing it to market defies us.
It is not defying physics. What is holding them back is that they can do x2 right now and easy. But x3 and x4 are on the horizon, so they hold back on investing billions. Do you really not see the contradictions and pure rubbish you write?
X2 is easy but they don't want to invest billions... that does not compute
There will ALWAYS be better tech around the corner, but if you can make money out of any advancement, you take it to market. Which comes back to earlier points you make about EVs being cheap, only they're not. And the technology exists only they don't seem to use it because it's too expensive. Duh..
I'm out of this thread, it's pointless talking to you.
Edited by Heres Johnny on Monday 24th July 03:57
RayTay said:
hey have happened.They are just not on the market yet.
How many more times does this need to be explained? The 2x or 3x increase in energy density is hoped for, it has NOT yet happened as clearly explained in the articles you've linked to.Frequently repeating incorrect assertions does not make them any less incorrect.
RayTay said:
t is not defying physics. What is holding them back is that they can do x2 right now and easy. But x3 and x4 are on the horizon, so they hold back on investing billions.
So suddenly 3x has not happened after all, despite earlier assertions that it has? Make up you mind. Where has 4x come from? You seem to be plucking numbers of out of the air.I'm still waiting for the evidence of this ultra efficient wankel engine being produced.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 24th July 08:22
otolith said:
RayTay said:
o nuclear power can drive an average car. None.
Oh, I don't know. A large radioisotope thermoelectric generator coupled with a battery (because it would need to charge the battery when not in use) would work.Wouldn't want to be anywhere near it, mind!
RayTay said:
I don't think you watched that video past 1:20.... either that or you don't have the grounding to understand why the commentator on the video is incorrect (some comments under the video did however, and made the submitter aware). Here are some particular elements I wish to highlight:
1) the video makes claims that Goodenough and his team has not - for example, their paper does not event speculate on a 10 fold increase of capacity.
2) the video also makes strawman arguments and then tears down same - for example, experts aren't "baffled" by how the battery works nor is Goodenough saying that material deposition isn't a factor. I've provided direct quotes from Goodenough himself showing that material deposition beyond 1 micronon is, besides pure manufacturing concerns, the single biggest factor stopping the technology from scaling out to practical application.
.... but I've said this before, and I expect I'll get the same response again.
MrJingles705 said:
I don't think you watched that video past 1:20.... either that or you don't have the grounding to understand why the commentator on the video is incorrect (some comments under the video did however, and made the submitter aware).
Here are some particular elements I wish to highlight:
1) the video makes claims that Goodenough and his team has not - for example, their paper does not event speculate on a 10 fold increase of capacity.
2) the video also makes strawman arguments and then tears down same - for example, experts aren't "baffled" by how the battery works nor is Goodenough saying that material deposition isn't a factor. I've provided direct quotes from Goodenough himself showing that material deposition beyond 1 micronon is, besides pure manufacturing concerns, the single biggest factor stopping the technology from scaling out to practical application.
.... but I've said this before, and I expect I'll get the same response again.
I fully understood the video. Goodenough is sticking to his claims.Here are some particular elements I wish to highlight:
1) the video makes claims that Goodenough and his team has not - for example, their paper does not event speculate on a 10 fold increase of capacity.
2) the video also makes strawman arguments and then tears down same - for example, experts aren't "baffled" by how the battery works nor is Goodenough saying that material deposition isn't a factor. I've provided direct quotes from Goodenough himself showing that material deposition beyond 1 micronon is, besides pure manufacturing concerns, the single biggest factor stopping the technology from scaling out to practical application.
.... but I've said this before, and I expect I'll get the same response again.
Edited by RayTay on Monday 31st July 23:58
RayTay said:
MrJingles705 said:
I don't think you watched that video past 1:20.... either that or you don't have the grounding to understand why the commentator on the video is incorrect (some comments under the video did however, and made the submitter aware).
Here are some particular elements I wish to highlight:
1) the video makes claims that Goodenough and his team has not - for example, their paper does not event speculate on a 10 fold increase of capacity.
2) the video also makes strawman arguments and then tears down same - for example, experts aren't "baffled" by how the battery works nor is Goodenough saying that material deposition isn't a factor. I've provided direct quotes from Goodenough himself showing that material deposition beyond 1 micronon is, besides pure manufacturing concerns, the single biggest factor stopping the technology from scaling out to practical application.
.... but I've said this before, and I expect I'll get the same response again.
I fully understood the video. Goodenough is sticking to his claims.Here are some particular elements I wish to highlight:
1) the video makes claims that Goodenough and his team has not - for example, their paper does not event speculate on a 10 fold increase of capacity.
2) the video also makes strawman arguments and then tears down same - for example, experts aren't "baffled" by how the battery works nor is Goodenough saying that material deposition isn't a factor. I've provided direct quotes from Goodenough himself showing that material deposition beyond 1 micronon is, besides pure manufacturing concerns, the single biggest factor stopping the technology from scaling out to practical application.
.... but I've said this before, and I expect I'll get the same response again.
Edited by RayTay on Monday 31st July 23:58
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0...
From the paper : "Theoretical energy density of 1.11 kWh kg?1"
1.11 to the power of minus 1 = 0.9 kWh kg
current batteries between 0.27 and 0.31, so 3 to 3/15 times (as per paper matches john goodenough quotes)
Video mentions 10 times (2 min 36 sec in); a figure he has never claimed, nor does his paper support.
From the paper : "Theoretical energy density of 1.11 kWh kg?1"
1.11 to the power of minus 1 = 0.9 kWh kg
current batteries between 0.27 and 0.31, so 3 to 3/15 times (as per paper matches john goodenough quotes)
Video mentions 10 times (2 min 36 sec in); a figure he has never claimed, nor does his paper support.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/04/19/01621...
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.
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.
He says they are 3 years from market if the it was picked up for further investment and development now (his quote) - without the cathode and deposition issues being fleshed out I say 5, but either way it was never, neither before nor now:
RayTay said:
The lithium-ion battery has been given THREE times the storage by a 96 yr old man, Dr John Goodenough. THREE times the storage of the current Li-ion batteries, smaller, a 5 minute charge time, is non-flammable, lighter, with NO degradation after several thousand charging cycles. And, it's ready for production, and should be cheaper to produce. Smart phones will last 4 days not one day. If it goes to market in volume and the price drops as a result, this is `game changer`. Full EVs are then here and bye, bye polluting petro fuels. It is also the other applications that add much value overall. I can see them in battery trains to save on the excessive cost of overhead wires and planes. with a generator on board.
As a retrofit a battery set change will triple the range of a plug-in Prius. It will also capture more kinetic energy as well. The car is changed by as simple battery change.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/17...
One day you'll acknowledge you didn't read it/watch it correctly, but we are on page 17 and still going.....As a retrofit a battery set change will triple the range of a plug-in Prius. It will also capture more kinetic energy as well. The car is changed by as simple battery change.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/17...
MrJingles705 said:
The video, and Goodenough's own quotes, are in direct opposition. I honestly marvel at the 1984 levels of doublethink you must do to reconcille these and say both are right and you support both.
The level of denial is astounding. Why is he pushing this agenda, what does he stand to gain?Mr2Mike said:
MrJingles705 said:
The video, and Goodenough's own quotes, are in direct opposition. I honestly marvel at the 1984 levels of doublethink you must do to reconcille these and say both are right and you support both.
The level of denial is astounding. Why is he pushing this agenda, what does he stand to gain?Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff