The Future of Batteries

[Shooter21]

What do you guys think the future will bring for battery technology? I was thinking maybe they can create miniature fusion powered batteries.

 

[mattheww50]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for fusion power. Fusion may be the power of the future, but it seems like it will always be in the future. People have spent billions of dollars and 50+ years so far on the problem, and a solution doesn't seem to be any closer now than it was 50 years ago.

 

[Knight_Light]

The current trend is in lithium technologies. The new technologies that are up-and-coming have the same energy densities but their capacities for charging and discharging are about 1000 times increased. So what does that mean for us. If this technology becomes commercialized you would be able to have the same 18650 battery with a capacity of 3400 mAh that could be charged in under 10 seconds with a specialized charger. Considering most household wiring would not support such high current charging the limitations would come from the outlet instead of the battery.

 

[Shooter21]

I was thinking about batteries made from DNA would be interesting if they could store energy rather than memory in the battery so you would probably be able to make a battery that would last for a really long time.

 

[LEDninja]

Ultra capacitors can be charged up really fast but at this time still does not hold a charge as well as a battery.
-
A member in 2010 was thinking of modding Maglites using them and what is now known as the budget showerhead.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?276348-Maglite-Forever-Fashlight-Poll&highlight=
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?277748-Budget-Showerhead-Mag-Drop-in
-
5.11 website is offering Light For Life™ UC3.400™ Flashlight
Charges in 90 seconds.
60 minute runtime.
200 peak lumens.

-----

Meanwhile the boffins at DoE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have come up with new sulfur-based battery is safer, cheaper, more powerful than lithium-ion. 4X the energy density of conventional lithium-ion batteries.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-safer-cheaper-more-powerful-than-lithium-ion

 

[Etsu]

I've heard battery chemists claim that lithium technology is getting close to maxed out when it comes to capacity. There may be another 50% gain or so, but not much more.

So, there has to be a breakthrough in another technology for batteries to truly replace gasoline for cars. We need capacities at 10x the current level for electric cars to make sense.

 

[thedoc007]

The current trend is in lithium technologies. The new technologies that are up-and-coming have the same energy densities but their capacities for charging and discharging are about 1000 times increased. So what does that mean for us. If this technology becomes commercialized you would be able to have the same 18650 battery with a capacity of 3400 mAh that could be charged in under 10 seconds with a specialized charger. Considering most household wiring would not support such high current charging the limitations would come from the outlet instead of the battery.

Ten seconds seems like a fantasy - the current you would have to use to do that would create many additional problems, the principal one being heat. I'd be happy with a ten or fifteen minute charge, which would avoid those problems entirely, and could be done without super-specialized chargers and wiring.

Personally, I don't really mind a slow charge - the capacity is far more important to me. I care more about how often I need to charge, and how long I can go without charging. But I have more cells than I need...if you only have one or two cells, I could see why the charging speed could be far more important. Cell phone batteries being the most obvious example.

 

[jtr1962]

I've heard battery chemists claim that lithium technology is getting close to maxed out when it comes to capacity. There may be another 50% gain or so, but not much more.

So, there has to be a breakthrough in another technology for batteries to truly replace gasoline for cars. We need capacities at 10x the current level for electric cars to make sense.

How so? Right now electric cars have ranges up to 300 miles, with the average being around 100 miles. That's already enough for most people, except for a small outlier who regularly travel further than that. The main reason electric cars haven't caught on yet is they still cost more than gas cars, but that's primarily because they aren't made in the same numbers. Once someone mass produces an EV with at least 200 mile range, and for the same price or less as a gas car, others will follow suit, and they'll obsolete gas cars within a decade. A better battery based on something other than lithium will help, but it's not 100% essential. I hear good things about carbon-based ultracapacitors, for example. If those pan out, we'll see ultra inexpensive, high-capacity batteries.

I heard a lot of naysayers say similar things ten years ago about how flat panel displays had issues, and we would still be using CRTs even 20 years later. The primary problem right now with electric cars is initial purchase price, not range. Much lower operating costs negate the higher upfront cost but most people don't make such analyses when buying, just as they don't when they balk at LED bulbs because of the higher cost. Nevertheless, EVs are not far from being price competitive with ICE cars on purchase price. They win hands-down on operating costs, noise, emissions, convenience (i.e. the ability to refuel at home). It's only a matter of time before they take over.

 

[Shooter21]

Probably nano batteries are our best hope for creating batteries that can store enormous amounts of energy.

 

[jtr1962]

Ten seconds seems like a fantasy - the current you would have to use to do that would create many additional problems, the principal one being heat. I'd be happy with a ten or fifteen minute charge, which would avoid those problems entirely, and could be done without super-specialized chargers and wiring.

Agreed. I think charging times less than about ten minutes make no sense, even for electric cars. The additional problems you need to deal with, versus the small benefits in time savings, just aren't worth it. An 18650 battery holds roughly 50,000 joules of energy. If we assume 80% charger efficiency, then to recharge it in ten seconds you need 6250 watts from the wall. That's ludicrous. For ten minute recharge you only need a bit over 100 watts. That's very feasible. Even five minute recharge is probably workable. Much more than that, and the components get larger, you need to deal with heat, etc. If you use 1800 watts. the maximum you can from most 120 VAC outlets, this drops the recharge time to about 35 seconds but probably increases your charger to something the size of a PC power supply. Totally not worth it just to save less than 9.5 minutes over 10 minute recharging. This is sort of the same reason CDs/DVDs stopped getting faster. At some point the problems which needed to be solved, versus the time saved, made the proposition uneconomically viable. Ten minute charging is fast enough, in that if you realize you forget to charge something before going out, you pop it in the charger while you're getting dressed, having your coffee, etc. By the time you're ready to leave, the device will be ready. You could even make a case for 5 minute charging if it can be done economically, but not much less than that.

 

[Shooter21]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for fusion power. Fusion may be the power of the future, but it seems like it will always be in the future. People have spent billions of dollars and 50+ years so far on the problem, and a solution doesn't seem to be any closer now than it was 50 years ago.

According to this physicist named Dr. Michio Kaku, Fusion is really only 20 years away from becoming a reality.

 

[StorminMatt]

According to this physicist named Dr. Michio Kaku, Fusion is really only 20 years away from becoming a reality.

But that's been the problem with fusion for the past 50 years. It's always been just 'right around the corner'.

 

[Knight_Light]

Ten seconds seems like a fantasy - the current you would have to use to do that would create many additional problems, the principal one being heat. I'd be happy with a ten or fifteen minute charge, which would avoid those problems entirely, and could be done without super-specialized chargers and wiring.

Personally, I don't really mind a slow charge - the capacity is far more important to me. I care more about how often I need to charge, and how long I can go without charging. But I have more cells than I need...if you only have one or two cells, I could see why the charging speed could be far more important. Cell phone batteries being the most obvious example.

As I said the technology would be limited at the outlet not with the battery technology itself. Battery technology currently as it is has reached a plateau when it comes to energy density so the next strides will be in how fast you can charge and discharge a particular chemistry. This is especially important for the automotive industry that is focusing on electric cars. At special charging stations you could recharge the batteries in a car in about 5 minutes, about the same time it takes to fuel the car now. This would make the electric car more feasible.

 

[Knight_Light]

Agreed. I think charging times less than about ten minutes make no sense, even for electric cars. The additional problems you need to deal with, versus the small benefits in time savings, just aren't worth it. An 18650 battery holds roughly 50,000 joules of energy. If we assume 80% charger efficiency, then to recharge it in ten seconds you need 6250 watts from the wall. That's ludicrous. For ten minute recharge you only need a bit over 100 watts. That's very feasible. Even five minute recharge is probably workable. Much more than that, and the components get larger, you need to deal with heat, etc. If you use 1800 watts. the maximum you can from most 120 VAC outlets, this drops the recharge time to about 35 seconds but probably increases your charger to something the size of a PC power supply. Totally not worth it just to save less than 9.5 minutes over 10 minute recharging. This is sort of the same reason CDs/DVDs stopped getting faster. At some point the problems which needed to be solved, versus the time saved, made the proposition uneconomically viable. Ten minute charging is fast enough, in that if you realize you forget to charge something before going out, you pop it in the charger while you're getting dressed, having your coffee, etc. By the time you're ready to leave, the device will be ready. You could even make a case for 5 minute charging if it can be done economically, but not much less than that.

If you read what I wrote about the 10 second charge is that it would have the capability but that it would be limited at the outlet.

 

[jtr1962]

If you read what I wrote about the 10 second charge is that it would have the capability but that it would be limited at the outlet.

It's not just the outlet limitation, but also the size of the electronics needed to deliver the power to the battery. We can make 100 watt AC-DC convertors in reasonably small sizes now. We can probably even go up to about 200 watts but beyond is problematic. That said, 10 second charge could be feasible if you have a very large ultracapacitor which can deliver a quick charge to a smaller battery or ultracap. The larger ultracap can be slowly topped off at a lower rate after it quick charges a smaller cell. A similar scheme on a larger scale could work for quick charging electric cars. The recharge station might only need to quick charge one car an hour, so it can draw relatively less from the line in between quick charges.

 

[Etsu]

How so? Right now electric cars have ranges up to 300 miles, with the average being around 100 miles. That's already enough for most people, except for a small outlier who regularly travel further than that.

It means that you can only drive within a city. If you want to drive to another town, you're stuck. And I don't want to trust a 100 mile limit if I'm driving along some rural road at night when it's -30 degrees outside. In a cold climate, we're probably lucky to get half what the company tells us.

The main reason electric cars haven't caught on yet is they still cost more than gas cars, but that's primarily because they aren't made in the same numbers.

That's part of the reason. The other part is replacing a $5000 dead battery after the warranty runs out (which is currently 8 years). It simply won't be worth it to replace a battery, because it will cost more than a used car is worth. So we're building cars designed to be thrown away when the battery wears out, just like all our other electronics like iPhones and iPads. This is false-environmentalism.

 

[jtr1962]

It means that you can only drive within a city. If you want to drive to another town, you're stuck. And I don't want to trust a 100 mile limit if I'm driving along some rural road at night when it's -30 degrees outside. In a cold climate, we're probably lucky to get half what the company tells us.

The average car trip is under 20 miles. If a person regularly drives more than the range of an EV, then they just get a gas car until the range of EVs increases. If a person only occasionally goes on trips which exceed an EV's range, then they rent a gas car for those trips, but use the EV for everything else. EVs could already get a lot more range from the same battery if we didn't make vehicles with the aerodynamics of a barn door. The EV1 regularly exceeded 100 mile range on lead-acid batteries with 1/3 the capacity of today's lithium-ion. The same car with modern batteries would get about 300 mile range, sufficient for probably 99.99% of all trips. My guess is we could improve even further nowadays on aerodynamics if we made it a priority. Battery capacity and range could be totally irrelevant if we embedded inductive charging coils every few miles on freeways so EVs could recharge on the fly. The technology for that already exists.

That's part of the reason. The other part is replacing a $5000 dead battery after the warranty runs out (which is currently 8 years). It simply won't be worth it to replace a battery, because it will cost more than a used car is worth. So we're building cars designed to be thrown away when the battery wears out, just like all our other electronics like iPhones and iPads. This is false-environmentalism.

EV batteries are regularly lasting past 300,000 miles. Newer batteries will only get better. I do agree with you that better batteries are a big factor in EVs not being more popular, although I'll say they're the second biggest factor (with purchase price being the main one).

 

[Etsu]

I do agree with you that better batteries are a big factor in EVs not being more popular, although I'll say they're the second biggest factor (with purchase price being the main one).

I think we agree on that point. But both those factors need to be comparable to a gas-powered car before electric cars are widely adopted by the public. I think the solution to both those problems is a better (and cheaper) battery. Lithium batteries ain't gonna cut it.

The problem for batteries is that fossil fuels are just fantastic stores of energy. Energy-dense, cheap, portable, and available everywhere.

 

[StorminMatt]

The problem for batteries is that fossil fuels are just fantastic stores of energy. Energy-dense, cheap, portable, and available everywhere.

All other problems with fossil fuels aside, they suffer from one HUGE problem that batteries don't: current technology for conversion of fossil fuels into useful work is HORRIBLY inefficient. Reciprocating gasoline engines waste 75% of available energy as heat. Gas turbines and diesel engines are not a whole lot better. And engineers jump for joy because they can build power plants that convert 60% of the energy in natural gas to electricity. Of course, fuel cells remain a pie in the sky. But with all this going on, plain old batteries convert over 90% of available chemical energy to electricity - in complete silence and without moving parts. Hydrocarbons may store more energy per pound. But if you're losing most of that energy when you use them (most of the time), the gap narrows considerably.

 

[Etsu]

All other problems with fossil fuels aside, they suffer from one HUGE problem that batteries don't: current technology for conversion of fossil fuels into useful work is HORRIBLY inefficient.
...
But with all this going on, plain old batteries convert over 90% of available chemical energy to electricity - in complete silence and without moving parts. Hydrocarbons may store more energy per pound. But if you're losing most of that energy when you use them (most of the time), the gap narrows considerably.

Sure, but who cares when fossil fuels are so energy-dense that you can still lose 75% of the energy and be way more practical than the best battery technology? That's the problem: batteries are still worse than even the poorest fossil fuel usage. Batteries need to have 10x the capacity before they can compete.

As for the environmental argument: what do you think is attached to the far end of your battery charger? Most likely, a coal plant.