Metal-Air battery with theoretical 1800km range for car
Discussion
What's your thoughts on this?
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/new-metal-air...
edit: I put theoretical in the title but the company claims they have done 1800km.
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/new-metal-air...
edit: I put theoretical in the title but the company claims they have done 1800km.
Edited by smiffy180 on Sunday 15th June 23:14
AdeTuono said:
What, you mean like 24 hour petrol stations and that?
they'd have to employ people to try and sell you chocolate bars and sign up to loyalty car scheme every time you paid, they'd be really busy at lunch times and there would be no organised queuing system and you'd keep getting stuck behind the idiot that's buying everything in the shop before paying while everyone that came in after you has been and gone, it would be a nightmare AdeTuono said:
What, you mean like 24 hour petrol stations and that?
The difference is the battery has to be swapped as a unit, it will probably have a bit of 'life' left in it, so there's potential energy wasted. It would be like fitting a new full fuel tank and throwing a half empty one away each time. 
CamMoreRon said:
They should be phased out with rechargeables IMO.. really bad for teh environments. 
There are plenty of places where single-use batteries are better (for the environment and the consumer). Generally in systems that draw so little power that the battery will out-last the rest of the unit anyway. CamMoreRon said:
Well that opens up a whole new discussion about the disposable nature of products..
In some cases. However, there are plenty of systems which are designed to never have to use their battery at all unless something else goes catastrophically wrong. For example, what would be the point of a rechargeable battery in an aeroplane's black box? CamMoreRon said:
Single-use batteries should die and stay dead forever. This is impressive, but slapping a new battery in every 1000 miles is hardly good for the environment, is it! I wouldn't be surprised if the overall footprint of such a thing would be worse than sticking with fossil fuels.
Surely that depends how much energy is required to recycle this battery compared to the energy required to recharge a conventional battery to cover the same distance. The article states that this would be used in combination with a rechargeable battery for longer journeys or it would be a good to alleviate unfounded range anxiety. Who knows, with some more development money this company might be able to make them rechargeable or at least efficient to recycle. kambites said:
In some cases. However, there are plenty of systems which are designed to never have to use their battery at all unless something else goes catastrophically wrong. For example, what would be the point of a rechargeable battery in an aeroplane's black box?
Isn't a Flight Recorder powered off the aircraft's power system? I would be VERY surprised if they changed the batteries on them every couple of weeks and didn't just have a rechargeable that was topped up in-flight.Ed. said:
Surely that depends how much energy is required to recycle this battery compared to the energy required to recharge a conventional battery to cover the same distance. The article states that this would be used in combination with a rechargeable battery for longer journeys or it would be a good to alleviate unfounded range anxiety. Who knows, with some more development money this company might be able to make them rechargeable or at least efficient to recycle.
I should imagine it takes more energy to recycle a battery than it does to make a new one, and much much more than it would take to recharge one. I'm not an expert in batteries, but this is basic physical laws. Its the battery recyling that is the point here, If the alloy can be 'recylced' at a low financial and environmental cost, then it is liable.
You could carry two of these in your car and just 'switch' over when one is depleted, then swap this at the local station, who re-new it on site. - this could work.
If the unit has to be transported to a main facility for complete re-build etc, then this is already dead tech and would not work for automobile application.
You could carry two of these in your car and just 'switch' over when one is depleted, then swap this at the local station, who re-new it on site. - this could work.
If the unit has to be transported to a main facility for complete re-build etc, then this is already dead tech and would not work for automobile application.
callmedave said:
Its the battery recycling that is the point here, If the alloy can be 'recycled' at a low financial and environmental cost, then it is liable.
You could carry two of these in your car and just 'switch' over when one is depleted, then swap this at the local station, who re-new it on site. - this could work.
If the unit has to be transported to a main facility for complete re-build etc, then this is already dead tech and would not work for automobile application.
I think that yes, if the battery can be made and recycled in a manner that consumes less energy and produces fewer emissions than operating an IC engine then it is viable, but I'm highly sceptical of that being the case.You could carry two of these in your car and just 'switch' over when one is depleted, then swap this at the local station, who re-new it on site. - this could work.
If the unit has to be transported to a main facility for complete re-build etc, then this is already dead tech and would not work for automobile application.
It won't be as simple as a quick renewal on-site.. the metals and electrolyte will have been chemically changed and will need processing & recycling, or more likely disposal.
CamMoreRon said:
kambites said:
In some cases. However, there are plenty of systems which are designed to never have to use their battery at all unless something else goes catastrophically wrong. For example, what would be the point of a rechargeable battery in an aeroplane's black box?
Isn't a Flight Recorder powered off the aircraft's power system? I would be VERY surprised if they changed the batteries on them every couple of weeks and didn't just have a rechargeable that was topped up in-flight.callmedave said:
AdeTuono said:
What, you mean like 24 hour petrol stations and that?
The difference is the battery has to be swapped as a unit, it will probably have a bit of 'life' left in it, so there's potential energy wasted. It would be like fitting a new full fuel tank and throwing a half empty one away each time. And that assumes just one size and type of battery, which is massively unlikely - just look at the variety of batteries used in mobile phones - you'd need a massive warehouse to house a useful stock of every type.
If anyone thinks you can have a single battery size and shape I'm willing to discuss it if they can tell me the standard battery size and shape for one of the simplest electric devices ever made - what one size do all torches use?
kambites said:
It's powered off the plane's electrical systems until the plane crashes, then it runs off batteries. No point in the batteries being rechargeable because they only get used once. There are a LOT of similar systems out there.
So are the batteries replaced every so often, or is the whole unit replaced? I'm very surprised that the flight recorder isn't charged off the plane's power system to ensure it's at 100% from the second the plane's power goes down. What's the reason for that? Do you work on these?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff