Revolutionary battery tech changes the way we charge

Topic

New Reply

PUBLIC DEFENDER By Brian Livingston The dream of renewable-energy advocates everywhere may finally have been realized. The goal is a battery technolog
[See the full post at: Revolutionary battery tech changes the way we charge]

2 users thanked author for this post.

MHCLV941, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Replies

turned out to be batteries made of ordinary iron pellets. That’s a material so common that the firm says its iron-air battery output will cost only one-tenth as much as the equivalent from today’s lithium-ion batteries.

Made in China Tesla 3 use iron-battries instead of lithium batteries.

Reply | Quote

A new battery revolution appears and disappears each year, yawn.

Reply | Quote

This is a truly interesting topic.

Iron-air batteries are heavier than other types and are also slower when it comes to recharging, but they can provide electricity for days, compared with others (e.g. ion-lithium ones) that can do it only for a few hours. Another consideration is their lower cost relative to those of other batteries, including other metal-air batteries, because this type uses iron, a very common element readily available in nature, compared to other metals that are expensive, rare, limited resources and, or that have to be imported from countries that are, because of internal problems, or for international political reasons, unreliable providers of these metals.

Here there is an accessible explanation of how these batteries work, with a nifty video linked in this article showing how iron-air batteries could be used to solve the renewable energy storage problem:

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/battery-company-claims-astonishingly-cheap-longterm-storage-capacity/

And here is a panel discussion among experts, including the CEO of “Form Energy”, the iron-air batteries company in the news, followed by a Q&A period, on the use of battery storage for evening out the supply of energy generated from renewables, so electric energy is available when the two more used these days for large scale generation: wind and solar, are not working because the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsS5270loSw&ab_channel=OurEnergyPolicy.org

From the accompanying notes:

“Battery-driven energy storage systems are already being sold around the world to utilities and to homeowners with rooftop solar. However, studies suggest that energy storage for not just hours but for days and even weeks will be necessary to address the seasonal variation of expanded wind and solar power distribution. What technologies could step up to the plate as solutions, and how can we expedite their development?

Featuring: Noël Bakhtian – Discussion Lead Executive Director, Berkeley Lab Energy Storage Center

Wesley Cole Senior Energy Analyst, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Mateo Jaramillo CEO & Co-Founder, Form Energy, Inc.

Eric Kim Power Resources Planner, Silicon Valley Clean Energy

Jan Pepper Chief Executive Officer, Peninsula Clean Energy.”

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I’m sorry, but I am highly skeptical of this. Until fusion is perfected, we should build as many thorium salt reactors as possible. This sounds like another Solyndra.

2 users thanked author for this post.

MHCLV941, wavy

Reply | Quote

Before coming to a conclusion on practical matters one should have objectively proven facts to base such a conclusion. There are not going to be such facts to base a conclusion on whether iron-air batteries can be a solution to the storage of renewable energy for as long as it is often necessary, until there has been a conclusive trial at a sufficiently large scale to see how this works. Skepticism is a subjective outlook, not an objective fact relevant, for example, to the usefulness, or otherwise, of this type of batteries for the purpose under consideration.

Now about thorium reactors: Thorium reactors are known have significant advantages over uranium fueled ones, but although the idea has long been around it has not made much headway and one of the main reasons for that has been cost. A while ago I started a thread on the possible use of small reactors as one part of any low-CO2 emissions bridge to a day when practically all power used is electrical power generated using green energy. Such a shorter-term  bridge is needed, given the time and effort and money and political will this transition is likely to take to be put fully in place before the use of fossil fuels causes a dangerous long-term rise in global temperatures. And small thorium reactors were seen as possible candidates for this purpose, because of several advantages they have over uranium-fueled ones, including: being less likely to suffer catastrophic breakdowns, being of little use as sources of plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and generating a much lower amount of radioactive waste, plus a greater natural abundance of minable thorium ore suitable for processing into nuclear fuel than of equally utilizable uranium ore.

More on this underappreciated, potentially important component of a shorter-term low-CO2 bridge from a fossil fuels-based economy to one based on all-renewables, can be read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

Richard C Algeni wrote:

I’m sorry, but I am highly skeptical of this.

Highly skeptical?  Think back to the days when Flat Panel Displays were being developed using those new-fangled Liquid Crystals.  After that came color LCD computer monitors and TV sets!  I have to admit to being skeptical about that but I was wrong.  Now I try to keep an open mind.

Being 20 something in the 70's was much more fun than being 70 something in the 20's.

Reply | Quote

Richard C Algeni wrote:

I’m sorry, but I am highly skeptical of this. Until fusion is perfected, we should build as many thorium salt reactors as possible. This sounds like another Solyndra.

It most certainly sounds too good to be true but – pardon the mixed metaphor – every once in a while, the blind dog DOES find the bone.  Perhaps this time, the bone is a Tomahawk ribeye that still has the meat on it.

Time will tell if this thing really works in real life and if it really is as affordable as claimed.  And what the inevitable downsides are.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Charlie wrote:

I have to admit to being skeptical about that but I was wrong.

Being skeptical is “not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations”.  There is nothing wrong with true skepticism – it helps one not buy too much snake oil.

Where it becomes a problem is when the skeptical person allows it to morph into outright denial.  The closed mind is a greater obstacle to progress than any technical, engineering or even theoretical hurdle an idea must overcome.

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, Charlie

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

A new battery revolution appears and disappears each year, yawn.

And the naysayers along with them.  Luddites are clearly alive and well in the 21st Century.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

I have no problem with this battery technology if it will actually work, but one of the premises seems to be that it is bad news to use coal, oil, natural gas, or even nuclear power to supply our energy needs. If that is indeed one of the premises of this new battery technology, I will respectfully disagree completely. I am in favor of any form of technology that can get the job done, depending upon the circumstances. If you want to power or aid your personal abode with solar or wind power or whatever works, go for it. But you cannot run industries in a country like the united states using solar or wind power, because there is simply not enough power in such technologies to do the job. Besides, there is nothing wrong and everything right with using our coal, oil, gas, and nuclear technologies to power our country and it’s development. Emphasizing so-called renewable energy sources to the detriment of conventional energy sources is a losing proposition all the way around. Use them all as they apply to each situation. don’t count any of them out.

Reply | Quote

I agree about the iron-based batteries being promising, but their actual potential still has to be proven in practice. There might be problems not yet found, for example in achieving economical large-scale production and, or distribution of these batteries, so what is being attempted now is an experiment to prove or disprove their viability as a cheap way to store energy, particularly in large quantities, from  whichever source it might come from.

I also agree that fossil fuels and nuclear are not things that can be totally avoided, short term, and there is the bad example of Germany now extensive use of brown coal, a fossil fuel that is also a bad air polluter as well as a source of global-warmingCO2, to keep the country going, not just the factories but pretty much everything requiring energy, from aluminum smelters to electric toothbrushes, once the political decision was made to close down all nuclear power stations, thus replacing a local source of dangerous waste with one of global reach.

While the immediate, or very quick shut down of those sources of problematic energy might satisfy some activists, such cure is bound to be worse than the disease and no substitute for a rational approach to a serious problem on its way to turning dire, due to the lack of effective action, no matter how many declarations of good intentions might have been made, by the governments of this world that, some more than others, are all to some extent responsible for not doing enough to prevent, or at least ameliorate the already noticeable climate catastrophe in progress.

I understand and support those who, like Greta Thunberg, keep hammering the message that her young generation is not likely to be thankful to those that leave them as heritage the burning mess of a planet to deal with.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote