The air battery you point to has one very serious problem. As it absorbs oxygen, the battery swells. That oxygen has to go somewhere, after all. And the swelling can cause a short through the isolation gap that shorts them out and instantly dumps ALL the charge stored in the cell across the shorting lithium... in the air. One of the most reactive metals in existence, limitless oxidizer, and a nice carbon arc heat source.
Kaboom.
Like the article says, we've had the tech for 15 years. There is potential for it, yes. But there's a reason the battery makers haven't rushed out to mass produce them.
They've been making headway regarding safety concerns in the last few years, as well, as I understand.
This is something I found just from Googling, for instance. (http://www.udri.udayton.edu/News/2009/Pages/BatteryBreakthrough!.aspx)
There is another company out there that I recently saw an article up on that had made a battery breakthrough - so the tech is coming up on another spike.
I note nothing whatever in the article about recharge time.
There are two, not one, two drawbacks to battery-powered vehicles. Energy density (i. e. how far you can get on one charge) is only one. The other is recharge time (i. e. how fast you can fill up the tank). No electrical vehicle has been able to reduce recharge times below two hours without a hybrid power system, swapping batteries, or using "fast-charge" systems that drastically reduce battery life and capacity.
Until and unless you can recharge an electric car in times comparable to filling up a gas tank, electric cars will only be useful for short commutes or city driving. They'll be utterly useless for long distance or long-period driving (like road trips or, in town, taxi service). And people who want that option available to them will turn away from them.
That's why I prefer hydrogen- fuel cells when the technology becomes workable, straight combustion until then- to batteries, and one reason why I'm disgusted Obama cut hydrogen fuel research in favor of more ethanol subsidies.
What if we had an infrastructure where the plane flies from NYC to SEA with battery A, swaps it for a full battery B in SEA and then flies back to NYC with battery B. In NYC it swaps B for C, and flies to SEA with C, where it picks up battery A, now recharged. Then A flies back to NYC, and the cycle can start over again? (technically B and C have switched places, so the cycle doesn't repeat for 4 more flights, but I hope you'll extrapolate those 4 from the 4 I listed).
The airline would need to own 3 batteries, 2 charging stations, and 1 electric plane. That's not too much. The recharge time could be measured in hours because each battery is sitting around while the plane flies across the country and back again.
For an airline, that might work. For an individual aviator, it depends on how flush they are, and how many batteries they can afford to scatter among how many airport hangars.
For automobiles and other personal applications requiring daily use... not so practical.
For cars, depends on how it's used. If a battery can cover daily driving distances, let's say 50 miles of city traffic, then recharge overnight most people should be good. Likewise if your long distance driving is planned so you have adequate time for a recharge then you're also good. It's only when your driving distance exceeds the range of the vehicle is there a problem.
One of the factors used by insurance companies in determining rates is how much you drive. A car driven 6000 miles a year (500 miles a month) would pay less than one driving 24000 miles a year (2000 a month). With this in mind, it may be economical to have a car designated for long trips. Or even renting a car for a long trip and leaving the shorter range electric cars at home.
Forgot to mention "other personal applications requiring daily use". What sort of applications? Do you mean devices? I see it being practical overall since people do sleep. If a charge can last all day, then it can recharge at night. Right now my media player gets me through the day and I leave it in my computer in the evening until it's charged up again. If the same can be done for a laptop, it would be a huge boon.
Basically a battery has to have enough charge to do what you need it to do and recharge completely before you need it again.
Recharge times have been getting better and better. When I worked for < Major Car Company > I knew someone who had been involved with the R/D of their E Car line. The main thing < person > told me that held < company > back from pushing hard on the E line was just the cost of replacing the battery, in the event of a failure.
There was a recent article of a company (I think in Germany) that claims to have made a few leaps and bounds, though, so that their batteries last for a reasonable charge, take minutes to power up, and cost in the $1-$3k range - if that's true, it's a major game changer.
redneckgaijin has some good points about the limitations of battery life. However how can we overcome these limitations if we don't try? I don't just mean in terms of technology, but life. Do we quit at the first wall we meet or do we try and climb it? I'm not saying we should persist in a futile pursuit, but working at it can yield other benefits. Even if the electric car doesn't work out for all situations, the advancements in battery tech can be a boon in other areas.
Well, see, that's the thing. Every time I post something here about new possible technologies in renewable energy, somebody shoots it down, on the basis of such-and-such science (like the oxygen thing, above). I sincerely doubt that every single one of these projects has missed something so very obvious that they aren't at least trying to work around it.
And, all you nay-sayers, if you really think you've noticed such-and-such and the research team hasn't, seriously, maybe you should tell them about it. Or at least ask if they've considered it. I bet they have web sites, and e-mail, and forums. Who knows -- maybe they did miss something obvious, you've helped 'em!
I hear you. I have the same thing to say about evolution and climate change deniers. Do they really think they know more than the scientists who studied those subjects for decades and all of them missed the "obvious" flaw some pundit pointed out?
I'm with Tom. What is wrong with these people who have to find some flaw in any scientific advance, no matter how small, and use that to discredit the entire idea? Do you people have brain damage or something? Ar you mentally incapable of imagining something working for the betterment of mankind? Do you really enjoy dragging everybody down to your personal level of misery and impending doom? Are you so small and petty that whenever someone develops something good you have to destroy it with infantile nit-picking?
In that case, stop using the internet, as it can't possible work because (insert minor and short-sighted perceived flaw here).
"The batteries will periodically explode, incinerating the car's occupants in a case of spontaneous vehicle combustion!"
Best Nigel Tufnel voice: "That's just nit-picking, isn't it?"
Actually, my techno-optimism yields to few. Particular encouraging for mankind's long-term prospects is the intersection of 1.3 x 10**17 watts (global insolation at ground level) and the last few decade's trend in the price of solar cells, extrapolation of which suggests that we ought to have unlimited cheap energy within five to ten years. (I think the cost of energy has been underappreciated as a cause of the recent economic malaise.)
Be that as it may, technology advances by applying some cold-hearted mathematical, scientific, and engineering analysis to possible innovations. To do so is not only not a crime, but a necessity for progress to occur. Otherwise, you waste finite resources on a near-infinite supply of dead ends.
I'm just complaining about the knee-jerk shooting down of an idea based on a short article that doesn't in any way imaginable cover all aspects of the tech development. I've been seeing this all week and it's getting to me. Even if the article specifically addressed the expansion issues, even if there was a gigantic headline stating "EXPLOSION PROBLEM SOLVED!", even if the article printed every page of the research, testing and scientific studies, someone would still say something like "Yeah, but in 1922 batteries leaked acid which wasn't safe, so this concept will never work."
Case in point, small wind turbines for small homes. They work. I know five people who have them on their roofs and they save a lot of money in power bills. Yet every time I see an article (three this week) about small home wind turbines some idiot has to post that they "ran the numbers" which proved that such small wind generators can't provide enough power for a twenty-story office building so the idea will never work and anyone who believes it will is a naive fool.
After about thirty such occurrences I reach my breaking point and want to throw pies at such people.
And if you do it with a windmilling motion, you can generate more energy! [g,d,r] Seriously, thanks, ace. You and I are definitely on the same page here.
And this particular jaunt of the thread has reminded me of one of my favorite Asimov quotes: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
someone would still say something like "Yeah, but in 1922 batteries leaked acid which wasn't safe, so this concept will never work."
I keep saying that if bicycles were invented today the mindset you're talking about would have them outlawed everywhere by the end of the year; the attitude's similar enough, in any case.
In my case, it's because I know there damn well IS better technology, available right now, that the Powers That Be have decided should be the loser in the tech race, regardless of the merits.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-12 04:55 pm (UTC)Kaboom.
Like the article says, we've had the tech for 15 years. There is potential for it, yes. But there's a reason the battery makers haven't rushed out to mass produce them.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-12 05:58 pm (UTC)This is something I found just from Googling, for instance. (http://www.udri.udayton.edu/News/2009/Pages/BatteryBreakthrough!.aspx)
There is another company out there that I recently saw an article up on that had made a battery breakthrough - so the tech is coming up on another spike.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-12 09:39 pm (UTC)There are two, not one, two drawbacks to battery-powered vehicles. Energy density (i. e. how far you can get on one charge) is only one. The other is recharge time (i. e. how fast you can fill up the tank). No electrical vehicle has been able to reduce recharge times below two hours without a hybrid power system, swapping batteries, or using "fast-charge" systems that drastically reduce battery life and capacity.
Until and unless you can recharge an electric car in times comparable to filling up a gas tank, electric cars will only be useful for short commutes or city driving. They'll be utterly useless for long distance or long-period driving (like road trips or, in town, taxi service). And people who want that option available to them will turn away from them.
That's why I prefer hydrogen- fuel cells when the technology becomes workable, straight combustion until then- to batteries, and one reason why I'm disgusted Obama cut hydrogen fuel research in favor of more ethanol subsidies.
Battery Swap
Date: 2011-08-12 09:53 pm (UTC)The airline would need to own 3 batteries, 2 charging stations, and 1 electric plane. That's not too much. The recharge time could be measured in hours because each battery is sitting around while the plane flies across the country and back again.
Re: Battery Swap
Date: 2011-08-12 10:14 pm (UTC)For automobiles and other personal applications requiring daily use... not so practical.
Re: Battery Swap
Date: 2011-08-12 11:08 pm (UTC)One of the factors used by insurance companies in determining rates is how much you drive. A car driven 6000 miles a year (500 miles a month) would pay less than one driving 24000 miles a year (2000 a month). With this in mind, it may be economical to have a car designated for long trips. Or even renting a car for a long trip and leaving the shorter range electric cars at home.
Re: Battery Swap
Date: 2011-08-12 11:26 pm (UTC)Basically a battery has to have enough charge to do what you need it to do and recharge completely before you need it again.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 01:28 am (UTC)justthe cost of replacing the battery, in the event of a failure.There was a recent article of a company (I think in Germany) that claims to have made a few leaps and bounds, though, so that their batteries last for a reasonable charge, take minutes to power up, and cost in the $1-$3k range - if that's true, it's a major game changer.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-12 11:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 12:01 am (UTC)And, all you nay-sayers, if you really think you've noticed such-and-such and the research team hasn't, seriously, maybe you should tell them about it. Or at least ask if they've considered it. I bet they have web sites, and e-mail, and forums. Who knows -- maybe they did miss something obvious, you've helped 'em!
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 01:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 03:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 01:19 am (UTC)In that case, stop using the internet, as it can't possible work because (insert minor and short-sighted perceived flaw here).
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 04:23 am (UTC)Best Nigel Tufnel voice: "That's just nit-picking, isn't it?"
Actually, my techno-optimism yields to few. Particular encouraging for mankind's long-term prospects is the intersection of 1.3 x 10**17 watts (global insolation at ground level) and the last few decade's trend in the price of solar cells, extrapolation of which suggests that we ought to have unlimited cheap energy within five to ten years. (I think the cost of energy has been underappreciated as a cause of the recent economic malaise.)
Be that as it may, technology advances by applying some cold-hearted mathematical, scientific, and engineering analysis to possible innovations. To do so is not only not a crime, but a necessity for progress to occur. Otherwise, you waste finite resources on a near-infinite supply of dead ends.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 04:35 am (UTC)Case in point, small wind turbines for small homes. They work. I know five people who have them on their roofs and they save a lot of money in power bills. Yet every time I see an article (three this week) about small home wind turbines some idiot has to post that they "ran the numbers" which proved that such small wind generators can't provide enough power for a twenty-story office building so the idea will never work and anyone who believes it will is a naive fool.
After about thirty such occurrences I reach my breaking point and want to throw pies at such people.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 01:05 pm (UTC)And this particular jaunt of the thread has reminded me of one of my favorite Asimov quotes: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 03:42 pm (UTC)I keep saying that if bicycles were invented today the mindset you're talking about would have them outlawed everywhere by the end of the year; the attitude's similar enough, in any case.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 03:49 pm (UTC)(paraphrased from the rejection letter sent to a british inventor who tried to patent a very early motorcycle design)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-13 01:17 pm (UTC)