# Why is battery technology so behind the times?



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 15, 2022)

In the past 50 years Electronics technology has come a long way. Now we have mobile computers, mobile phones and a whole host of other tech that has had years of ever increasing and improving development, but not battery technology, why not?

Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop? is it related to the car and petrol industry? if battery technology had got better in relation to other electronic development then E vehicles would be much more viable. The biggest cost and weight in a EV is the battery's, in todays high tech world this seems very backward in relation to other tech.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 15, 2022)

It seems like every year we read about some ground breaking battery tech, but nothing ever comes of it. Last I heard solid state batteries are coming soon









						First Toyota with Solid-State Batteries Will Be a Hybrid
					

The Japanese automaker confirmed that its first vehicle with solid-state batteries will launch by the middle of this decade and that the new tech will initially debut in a hybrid.




					www.caranddriver.com
				




toyota has announced mid 2020's hybrid cars will be solid state. which is innovative.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 15, 2022)

I guess its because the world is relatively going from 0-100 real quick as far as demand for electric cars go and the industry not having enough money ploughed into the R&D department to respond to life sized RC cars.

The demand has to be really there to push innovation forward the same way how a lot more weapons are designed and improved during times of war. But the difference is there were also a lot more companies that made planes, ships, tanks and other equipment competing against one another for a military contract.

Its a race to find a new element or composite that can hold more charge than lithium Ion and hopefully a be a lot more lighter.



lynx29 said:


> It seems like every year we read about some ground breaking battery tech, but nothing ever comes of it. Last I heard solid state batteries are coming soon



The last battery tech i heard was 'Graphene' and that was a maybe a good 3-5years ago???


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 15, 2022)

Something battery related that gets me is this.

Most Lithium battery's cannot be just dropped in a normal bin, So where do you get rid of them? I have got stacks of old Laptop battery cells, quite a few flat lithium cells and some others in a box as i don't know what to do with them. Do the local council make it known of where to dispose of them? NO In the UK you cannot put them in the blue or black bin, so what are you supposed to do with them. How many million tons of these old battery's must there be in land fill, what will happen when all that lithium and other stuff leaks into the ground.

I can't wait till battery tech is better. I remember seeing stuff about battery's that charge in seconds, Where is it? There is seemingly zero research that is public knowledge regarding better battery's.

Is it the chemical stuff that is the reason? How toxic is Lithium?

Get an old Lithium cell and stab the point of a knife in it(* PLEASE kids or young adults do not do this without some adult supervision from dad if you must try it*), see what happens. These battery's are dangerous too.


----------



## qubit (Jan 15, 2022)

It's basically, because it's hard to do. The first thing is to increase the energy density, then things like safety and stability under various temperatures and material availability are all required to be within reasonable limits to make a sellable product. The first company that cracks it will make a killing so the will is there.

I too remember reading about those prototype batteries that charge in literally seconds, but it's gone quiet since so there must be problems with them.

btw, lithium batteries are a 1970s technology and were great for their time, but it's now high time that something better came along. I especially don't like their tendency to go off like a blowtorch when pierced or otherwise breached.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 15, 2022)

qubit said:


> It's basically, because it's hard to do. The first thing is to increase the energy density, then things like safety and stability under various temperatures and material availability are all required to be within reasonable limits to make a sellable product. The first company that cracks it will make a killing so the will is there.
> 
> I too remember reading about those prototype batteries that charge in literally seconds, but it's gone quiet since so there must be problems with them.
> 
> btw, lithium batteries are a 1970s technology and were great for their time, but it's now high time that something better came along. I especially don't like their tendency to go off like a blowtorch when pierced or otherwise breached.



I have changed battery's on our phones a few times, and when peeling the old ones off and they bend being terrified it was going to set on fire and destroy the phone.


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 15, 2022)

The problem, as with most things, is one of $: (1) Li-ion batteries are really, really good at what they do for what they cost to make (2) alternatives and/or improvements to Li-ion are really, really expensive. All those breakthroughs you keep reading about? They're happening in university laboratories which, by their very nature, have no concern for whether the research they're doing could ever be commercially viable - hence the vast majority of those breakthroughs aren't ever going to make it into products we can buy. Even if they do make it out of the lab, there are so many other factors (safety being a prime one) that control whether a new battery tech can ever succeed.

A lot of these "breakthroughs" are also just theoretical applications of research to existing technology. Nanotech or graphene will make batteries better... they will also make pretty much ANYTHING they're applied to better. But the cost and feasibility of those techs simply isn't there.

On the topic of safety, please can we drop the hysteria about Li-ion batteries being "unsafe"? By the same argument, gasoline is unsafe because it can be lit on fire, yet somehow nobody has a problem riding around in vehicles carrying massive tanks of the stuff. Gasoline is completely safe if you treat it with the appropriate care, and so are Li-ion batteries.



Tigger said:


> Most Lithium battery's cannot be just dropped in a normal bin, So where do you get rid of them? I have got stacks of old Laptop battery cells, quite a few flat lithium cells and some others in a box as i don't know what to do with them. Do the local council make it known of where to dispose of them? NO In the UK you cannot put them in the blue or black bin, so what are you supposed to do with them. How many million tons of these old battery's must there be in land fill, what will happen when all that lithium and other stuff leaks into the ground.


Yes, you should contact your local council regarding disposal of used batteries (of all types). Some will even pick these up as part of ordinary refuse collection, but if not you can also find battery drop-off points at many big stores (e.g. Tesco - scroll down to "Recycling your batteries").



qubit said:


> lithium batteries are a 1970s technology


Not really. The groundwork research into Li-ion batteries was performed in the 1970s, but it was only in 1985 that the first prototype was produced, and another 6 years until a commercially viable model finally emerged. Which is why it amuses me so much when people complain that battery tech advances so slowly... the internal combustion engine has been around for over TWO CENTURIES and yet scientists are still finding ways to squeeze more distance out a tank, or produce less pollutants, or...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 15, 2022)

qubit said:


> It's basically, because it's hard to do. The first thing is to increase the energy density, then things like safety and stability under various temperatures and material availability are all required to be within reasonable limits to make a sellable product. The first company that cracks it will make a killing so the will is there.
> 
> I too remember reading about those prototype batteries that charge in literally seconds, but it's gone quiet since so there must be problems with them.
> 
> btw, lithium batteries are a 1970s technology and were great for their time, but it's now high time that something better came along. I especially don't like their tendency to go off like a blowtorch when pierced or otherwise breached.



what are you talking about? toyota is on track for solid state battery hybrid cars to be released in 2025/2026.  and I imagine they won't be super expensive as toyota is going to scale it, and since they are the biggest car maker in the world and in the usa, they have the ability to scale and keep costs low. I'm hopeful for a solid state battery hybrid toyota to cost 27k to 30k in year 2026. i already posted a link above, but its not just toyota, solid state is coming.

Solid-state batteries can reach an 80-percent charge within 15 minutes and incur less strain after multiple charging cycles. A lithium-ion battery will begin to degrade and lose power capacity after 1,000 cycles. On the other hand, a solid-state battery will maintain 90 percent of its capacity after 5,000 cycles.Aug 2, 2021 - JDPower


----------



## bug (Jan 15, 2022)

Tigger said:


> In the past 50 years Electronics technology has come a long way. Now we have mobile computers, mobile phones and a whole host of other tech that has had years of ever increasing and improving development, but not battery technology, why not?
> 
> Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop? is it related to the car and petrol industry? if battery technology had got better in relation to other electronic development then E vehicles would be much more viable. The biggest cost and weight in a EV is the battery's, in todays high tech world this seems very backward in relation to other tech.


Because it's chemistry and chemical. No matter how much money you sink, you can't change how matter works on its most basic scale. (Ok, that would be sub-atomic, but you get the idea.)

What rechargeable batteries do (I'm assuming those are the ones you care about) is undergo a chemical reaction to store energy while charging and afterwards trying their best to give you as much as possible as from the energy they took in. All the while trying not to lose capacity as they got through charge/discharge cycles.
As you can imagine, this is both complicated and inefficient. There are some batteries that perform way better than what you can buy at Costco, but only in labs, as nobody has figured out how to manufacture them at a reasonable cost. Add the mandatory eco-rallies you get whenever you try to mine locally some the chemicals batteries need and the picture gets even more complicated.
Make no mistake, cell phones and EVs is not when people started into better batteries. That happened long ago, probably with the first hand-held flashlight. My gut feeling tells me we're on a dead-end with the current technology. We are very, vary far from exploiting electricity at its full potential. But in order to improve radically, we'll need some very smart guy to come with some outside-the-box thinking or something like that.


----------



## qubit (Jan 15, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> Not really. The groundwork research into Li-ion batteries was performed in the 1970s, but it was only in 1985 that the first prototype was produced, and another 6 years until a commercially viable model finally emerged. Which is why it amuses me so much when people complain that battery tech advances so slowly... the internal combustion engine has been around for over TWO CENTURIES and yet scientists are still finding ways to squeeze more distance out a tank, or produce less pollutants, or...


*Development started in the 70s* and took quite a few years to reach commercialisation, hence 70s technology. Let's not split hairs.









						Lithium-ion battery - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





@lynx29 They haven't _actually_ released a commercial product have they? And it's projected for a release in 3 years' time. A lot can happen in that time and possibly go wrong, too. Let's see when it's actually released shall we? One can't actually _buy_ such a product now and that's the critical point. There's loads of battery technologies in development. Big deal, it's a commercialised product that counts.

That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 15, 2022)

The most promising new chemistry I have seen (though more evolutionary than revolutionary) is LiFePO4 cells.  They are available now, and do better than Li-Ion or LiPo.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 15, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> The most promising new chemistry I have seen (though more evolutionary than revolutionary) is LiFePO4 cells.  They are available now, and do better than Li-Ion or LiPo.


This is pretty good too


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 15, 2022)

Tigger said:


> This is pretty good too
> View attachment 232543


 this chart is for the battery rtb is talking about? that is impressive...


----------



## Frick (Jan 15, 2022)

Batteries are better though, and perhaps more importantly, more ubiquitous and cheaper.



> The original commercial lithium-ion battery, produced by Sony in the early 1990s, had an energy density of under 100 watt-hours per kilogram. That number has climbed over time, with the familiar cylindrical 18650 cells on the market hitting 200 watt-hours per kilogram by 2010. According to BloombergNEF, batteries used in electric vehicles have gotten as high as 300 watt-hours per kilogram in the last couple of years.
















						The energy-storage frontier: Lithium-ion batteries and beyond - MRS Bulletin
					

Materials play a critical enabling role in many energy technologies, but their development and commercialization often follow an unpredictable and circuitous path. In this article, we illustrate this concept with the history of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, which have enabled unprecedented...




					link.springer.com
				




Another thing that is very important to remember is that we manage to do a whole lot of stuff on batteries. People like to compare new phones with old phones and say "my old Nokia lasted weeks!" but they forget that the old Nokia did a fraction of the thing a modern smartphone does with less than a fraction of performance avaliable. I used a feature phone as my only phone a few years back and honestly I don't miss it. Remember how the phone got super slow when writing long SMS messeges? Yeah.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 15, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> this chart is for the battery rtb is talking about? that is impressive...


Yes it appears to be a LiFePO4 chart.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 15, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Yes it appears to be a LiFePO4 chart.



alright it seems obvious what needs to happen then, this needs to be mass produced immediately. 









						Tesla will change the type of battery cells it uses in all its standard-range cars
					

The move is likely a way for Tesla to increase profit margins on its vehicles, while not necessarily having to raise vehicle prices.




					www.cnbc.com
				




so are the new Tesla's using this? or is this just a sub category of that I wonder. from what I can gather these are actually worse batteries Tesla is using, but they have a similar but not exact name as this battery... very confusing... ffs lol


----------



## Frick (Jan 15, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> alright it seems obvious what needs to happen then, this needs to be mass produced immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those names are referencing the internal chemistry in the battery. I don't pretend to know why, but that "new" composition (as per the link) makes for lower power density and is basically meant to increase profit margins. Other manufacturers are considering it for budget cars.

As for LiFePo4, sure. It has lower energy density now though. Other than that start a factory and get going I guess.

Some reading btw:








						Lithium-ion battery - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Spcifically the design section.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 15, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> The problem, as with most things, is one of $: (1) Li-ion batteries are really, really good at what they do for what they cost to make (2) alternatives and/or improvements to Li-ion are really, really expensive. All those breakthroughs you keep reading about? They're happening in university laboratories which, by their very nature, have no concern for whether the research they're doing could ever be commercially viable - hence the vast majority of those breakthroughs aren't ever going to make it into products we can buy. Even if they do make it out of the lab, there are so many other factors (safety being a prime one) that control whether a new battery tech can ever succeed.
> 
> A lot of these "breakthroughs" are also just theoretical applications of research to existing technology. Nanotech or graphene will make batteries better... they will also make pretty much ANYTHING they're applied to better. But the cost and feasibility of those techs simply isn't there.
> 
> ...


The F-16 was using Lithium Batteries back then


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 15, 2022)

Frick said:


> As for LiFePo4, sure. It has lower energy density now though.


Ah, always an achiles heel.  I only knew it beat out Li-Ion in longevity, and Lead Acid in density (but that's easy to do).


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 15, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Ah, always an achiles heel.  I only knew it beat out Li-Ion in longevity, and Lead Acid in density (but that's easy to do).



Elon needs to cut costs so he can afford Mars after all. That battery could be made better, from what I understand, but Tesla is trying to save a few bucks, that upper management wants that yacht club membership boys!


----------



## Caring1 (Jan 15, 2022)

I was looking up electric ride on mowers that use Lithium batteries and the run time is only up to 1.5 hours, which proves battery technology needs to improve to increase that.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 15, 2022)

Tigger said:


> In the past 50 years Electronics technology has come a long way. Now we have mobile computers, mobile phones and a whole host of other tech that has had years of ever increasing and improving development, but not battery technology, why not?
> 
> Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop? is it related to the car and petrol industry? if battery technology had got better in relation to other electronic development then E vehicles would be much more viable. The biggest cost and weight in a EV is the battery's, in todays high tech world this seems very backward in relation to other tech.


I think it's as much a Matter of focus, materials science and particle physics has been largely involved in other areas until battery tech attracted the attention and money.
Plus on purely a principle nature storing energy in small area's is not yet something we're great at, we went with fuel, and the money paid to science the shit out of it, same with nuclear, at least until they found a way to optimise weapons grade waste production then progress slowed.
I think the next decade will be a literal evolution from Materials science and bio engineering , things we consider hard , like co2 capture, will become uniform, productized and in all likelihood a business selling it's waste somehow..


----------



## natr0n (Jan 15, 2022)

Just like medicines that can cure stuff they want to sell shit to make profit.

Same with batteries.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 16, 2022)

Caring1 said:


> I was looking up electric ride on mowers that use Lithium batteries and the run time is only up to 1.5 hours, which proves battery technology needs to improve to increase that.




honestly what needs to happen is Samsung/Apple/Toyota and fill in blank for every major AAA player in the field that needs batteries, need to stop having a pissing contest, and come together and just make solid state batteries happen faster, source it together, build a factory together, and share that particular source together.  I honestly don't think it would hurt sales one or the other, as people who buy certain products buy it for other reasons. For those of you who are pessimists, they have come together in the past to do similar things, though from what I remember in my studies, it was mainly like standards in certain technical aspects, but alas it does prove they can work together.

Yeah, I know it will never happen, cause they can't stop their pissing contest, better the world burns then the **** measuring contest ends. God forbid we try to use a little logic and reason with capitalism.



natr0n said:


> Just like medicines that can cure stuff they want to sell shit to make profit.
> 
> Same with batteries.



meh they can still make profit, hell Apple had the worst batteries for the longest of times until recent years and they were always the biggest in the USA.  people never bought Apple for battery, and they don't buy Apple for battery now, they buy it because of the image it gives them or the security, or both, or they are just used to that UI.  

there is no reason they shouldn't all work together on solid state and make it happen overnight. they could if they wanted. and ironically if we could test this out in an alternate universe, I bet you would find it wouldn't hurt sales for any of them.  but none of them want to take the first dive into mass volume production of solid state batteries to bring costs down. it would take all of them together to do it.

but as I always say, -humans capable of so much, yet so little.


----------



## bug (Jan 16, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> I think it's as much a Matter of focus, materials science and particle physics has been largely involved in other areas until battery tech attracted the attention and money.


That's exactly what it is not. Money have been flowing into this for a hundred years. It's simply a hard nut to crack.


TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> Plus on purely a principle nature storing energy in small area's is not yet something we're great at, we went with fuel, and the money paid to science the shit out of it, same with nuclear, at least until they found a way to optimise weapons grade waste production then progress slowed.


It's hard to beat oil that literally jumps out of the ground and has a damn good energy density. We'll have to beat that, it's just hard to do it.


TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> I think the next decade will be a literal evolution from Materials science and bio engineering , things we consider hard , like co2 capture, will become uniform, productized and in all likelihood a business selling it's waste somehow..


Anyone uninformed on the subject think they'll see a radical change in about a decade. I've been hearing that ever since I was a kid. It's almost up there with flying cars.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 16, 2022)

bug said:


> That's exactly what it is not. Money have been flowing into this for a hundred years. It's simply a hard nut to crack.
> 
> It's hard to beat oil that literally jumps out of the ground and has a damn good energy density. We'll have to beat that, it's just hard to do it.
> 
> Anyone uninformed on the subject think they'll see a radical change in about a decade. I've been hearing that ever since I was a kid. It's almost up there with flying cars.


Your after a debate while closing your eyes and implying I'm uninformed.

A tough nut-. Obviously 

B the gift oil horse - Obviously

Open your F@#£@ eyes your typing on a system attached to a network, in my lifetime, only a blind tit would declare no progress on the Fledgling materials science, transistors were one of it's first , greatest material science successes.
Compared to it we have been shaping stone for thousands of years and built many great things.


----------



## Caring1 (Jan 16, 2022)

Just saw this article about quantum batteries.
It's something to look forward to for the future.


			Aussie advance in quantum battery reality


----------



## qubit (Jan 16, 2022)

Caring1 said:


> Just saw this article about quantum batteries.
> It's something to look forward to for the future.
> 
> 
> Aussie advance in quantum battery reality


Wow, it sounds science fiction, but it's science fact. I'd really like to see a battery charge more quickly the bigger it is too, that's so counterintuitive.

As they say, it's still an idea, so I'll temper my expectations for now.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 16, 2022)

Caring1 said:


> I was looking up electric ride on mowers that use Lithium batteries and the run time is only up to 1.5 hours, which proves battery technology needs to improve to increase that.


DC is bulky


----------



## Mussels (Jan 16, 2022)

Caring1 said:


> Just saw this article about quantum batteries.
> It's something to look forward to for the future.
> 
> 
> Aussie advance in quantum battery reality


These are powered by asking female batteries what they want to eat for dinner, their quantum indecision provides infinite energy

A cat with buttered toast on its back (butter side up) attached to a pole is the backup generator, as cats always land on their feet while toast always lands butter side down - however, this only works until the toast goes soggy.


Simple answer on the batteries: because all the promising tech they've found, has flaws - and they need other unrelated advances to catch up to fix them.

No use having a battery that charges fast and is cheap to make, if has too few recharge cycles before it dies.... or the worlds best super duper awesome battery... but it's powered by australian spider eggs, so in an accident all nearby humans get consumed


----------



## HIGHLANDER58 (Jan 16, 2022)

Tigger said:


> In the past 50 years Electronics technology has come a long way. Now we have mobile computers, mobile phones and a whole host of other tech that has had years of ever increasing and improving development, but not battery technology, why not?
> 
> Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop? is it related to the car and petrol industry? if battery technology had got better in relation to other electronic development then E vehicles would be much more viable. The biggest cost and weight in a EV is the battery's, in todays high tech world this seems very backward in relation to other tech.


I think the main reason why battery technology is so lagging is directly connected to the unfortunate fact that there is so crude oil that is still available and since that industry is so well and long established, there was no real hurry or urgency to pursue an alterative power source, despite the enormous  enviromental impact burning fossil fuels has  and even now batteries are finally starting to be properly researched only because the world Governments and the EPA are forcing them too.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 17, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> Your after a debate while closing your eyes and implying I'm uninformed.
> 
> A tough nut-. Obviously
> 
> ...



Sure but we still didn't get rocks to grow wings and fly. I think that's a proper analogy here. The main problem is a gap in cost, and that's just and only because fossil's price has been calculated on the wrong basis.

We're paying the real price for fossil right now, it echoes in all aspects of society, in infinite amounts of waste, spill disasters, plastics that stay in the environment for aeons, etc etc etc.

Earlier in the topic, people mentioned all those technologies for better batteries do exist, but in a lab. The problem is commercializing them. I think its similar to the discussion about the energy mix: fossil was a catch-all solution, but sustainable needs to be a very refined mix of technologies with the bottom line being more 'efficient' in every way. Efficiency is slowly starting to get calculated on more than the mileage of a car or the price of a barrel. That's the only path forward, and it will make all those unaffordable battery technologies affordable. And its not unusual either, we've already done this, even with fossil we utilize an energy mix rather than betting on one horse. And even today there are lots of considerations other than just price of crude oil.

Also, I lolled hard when I read blind tit. Sorry


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 17, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> Sure but we still didn't get rocks to grow wings and fly. I think that's a proper analogy here. The main problem is a gap in cost, and that's just and only because fossil's price has been calculated on the wrong basis.
> 
> We're paying the real price for fossil right now, it echoes in all aspects of society, in infinite amounts of waste, spill disasters, plastics that stay in the environment for aeons, etc etc etc.
> 
> ...


So you say, others say rocks could fly in the past, we just lost that technology in the flood.

As I said I think the cost is the main issue, we evolved fuel production and formulation ,with side use and production of various chemicals, like acetone out of necessity, few consider just how many chemicals are now derived from oil, and hence the research that went into it, now battery tech is becoming a well financed necessary resource I have no doubts it's challenge will be surmounted within a decade.
I don't get the "I have been hearing that for a decade" remark, do it yourself if you're smart ass thinks it's that easy.
And if you think it insurmountable, well millions of man hours will prove you wrong, human scientist/engineers are a determined bunch.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 17, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop?


No, it's because entire industries are built around existing battery chemistries and changing to the manufacture of a new formulation would be a huge investment.



R-T-B said:


> The most promising new chemistry I have seen (though more evolutionary than revolutionary) is LiFePO4 cells.  They are available now, and do better than Li-Ion or LiPo.


The problem with Lithium Iron Polymer based chemistry is that it still contains Lithium and in the presence of unoxidized Iron. While this formulation is an improvement in energy densities, it also requires very exacting standards for formulation. A mistake anywhere in the process can easily result in a very serious fire/explosion hazard.

We need battery formulations that do NOT contain lithium or other easily oxidized compounds. For example, Nickel/Copper/Carbon/Polymer formulations show great promise and present no fire hazard. They also have the theoretical potential to have 6 to 7 times the energy density of any Lithium based chemistry.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Yes it appears to be a LiFePO4 chart.



i have ten 100 amh lifep04 battereis.. two in my rv trailer and eight in my garden shed.. the ones in my shed are charged by 20 x 150 watt solar panels..

the desktop pc i am typing this on is being powered by the solar panels and batteries in my shed..  

total cost for the batteries and panels plus inverters and other stuff in the shed about £6000 quid.. 

the RV stuff cost about £1600.. 

catch up guys this stuff is already being mass produced and is readily available.. 

trog


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 17, 2022)

trog100 said:


> catch up guys this stuff is already being mass produced and is readily available..


It's also very dangerous. No thank you.


----------



## oobymach (Jan 17, 2022)

It's a throw away technology that has slowly gotten better but even lithium ion have a finite lifespan. If they gave us batteries that lasted forever we'd never need to buy more.

Also we actually do have batteries that last forever, we use them on satellites in space.









						Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 17, 2022)

oobymach said:


> Also we actually do have batteries that last forever, we use them on satellites in space.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess you didn't bother reading the "Life span" section of that page, huh.

Or the part that states RTGs only provide a few hundred watts of power.

Or the part where they use RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.


----------



## oobymach (Jan 17, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> I guess you didn't bother reading the "Life span" section of that page, huh.
> 
> Or the part that states RTGs only provide a few hundred watts of power.
> 
> Or the part where they use RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.


No I am well aware they use radioactive materials and are only good for a couple hundred watts, enough to run a satellite in space where maintenance is difficult to conduct they need a power source that will last basically forever and never need maintenance.

They are impractical for vehicular use due to collision damage causing radioactive leakage but one could run your computer forever. I want one for when the apocalypse happens and I need gaming.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 17, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's also very dangerous. No thank you.


Batteries are always dangerous to an extent.  What's important is matching the danger level to the use case, and being sensible.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 17, 2022)

oobymach said:


> Also we actually do have batteries that last forever, we use them on satellites in space.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's Why the Nuclear-Powered 1958 Ford Nucleon Never Entered Production (thedrive.com)

but I don't want to get off topic, just comment on your comment.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Batteries are always dangerous to an extent.


That depends greatly on the battery chemistry. However, as a general rule only lithium based chemistry runs the risk of fire. Lead-acid just leaks and corrodes. Carbon packs, Alkalines and Nickel types also just leak. None of them will catch fire and kill anyone doing it.


R-T-B said:


> What's important is matching the danger level to the use case, and being sensible.


Excellent point. The last place we need very large lithium packs is in vehicles were even a minor accident can cause a deadly fire. And before anyone says gasoline is just as dangerous, that is just not true. Fuel tank safety is impressive and has been for many decades.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 17, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That depends greatly on the battery chemistry. However, as a general rule only lithium based chemistry runs the risk of fire. Lead-acid just leaks and corrodes. Carbon packs, Alkalines and Nickel types also just leak. None of them will catch fire and kill anyone doing it.
> 
> Excellent point. The last place we need very large lithium packs is in vehicle were even a minor accident can cause a deadly fire. And before anyone says gasoline is just as dangerous, that is just not true. Fuel tank safety is impressive and has been for many decades.


I agree with that.  Always thought the early NiMH first gen Prius design was safer.  Granted, it was heavier and less sporty but...  it's a prius.  No one really is buying a hybrid to race right now.


----------



## bug (Jan 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Batteries are always dangerous to an extent.  What's important is matching the danger level to the use case, and being sensible.


In the sense that batteries are essentially concentrated energy (which they always are, no matter the tech behind them), yes, that will always be dangerous. 
The fuel tank of car is a sort of battery and it's also dangerous. Propellants that are the batteries of space ships aren't the safest things to be around either.

@lexluthermiester Yes, the fuel tank as a whole is safe because it mitigates the risks pretty well. But the risk is still in the tank


----------



## Shrek (Jan 17, 2022)

At least things don't blow up like in the movies.


----------



## bug (Jan 17, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> At least things don't blow up like in the movies.


Very little stuff IRL happens as in the movies 
Handguns do not have 50+ rounds magazines, vehicles don't go up when the road/bridge ends or when they collide, laser doesn't travel slower than a bullet... Crazy stuff, I tell you.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 17, 2022)

bug said:


> laser doesn't travel slower than a bullet


That's why the stormtroopers always miss...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Always thought the early NiMH first gen Prius design was safer.


This I can get onboard with. NiMH batteries, while only holding 80% the energy density, are safer by far!


----------



## trog100 (Jan 17, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's also very dangerous. No thank you.



lifep04 isnt.. it dosnt catch fire like lithium iron does.. some more catching up you need to do.. 

trog


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 17, 2022)

trog100 said:


> lifep04 isnt.. it dosnt catch fire like lithium iron does.


LiFePo4 IS Lithium Iron. The "Li" stands for Lithium, the "Fe" stands for Iron and the "Po" stands for phosphate. There is also a polymer component. And it is a still very dangerous chemistry.


trog100 said:


> some more catching up you need to do..


Sorry mate, but it's you that needs to re-verify your info. No offense of course.









						Lithium iron phosphate battery - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						BatterySpace.com/AA Portable Power Corp. Tel: 510-525-2328
					

LiFePO4/LiFeMnPO4 Rechargeable Cells, Packs, PCM



					www.batteryspace.com


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 17, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> This I can get onboard with. NiMH batteries, while only holding 80% the energy density, are safer by far!


They also I think still have perk of being able to output burst power, while remaining non-exploded. Reason why traditional flash for mirorless or DSLR still use older type rechargeable batteries.

Reason why EVs are still no go is same as hundred years ago. Too heavy, not enough capacity, slow to recharge.

They can push it as much as they want, but unless someone makes a lot better battery (major breakthrough required), or real fuel cell, its just destined to fail.

Not mentioning, that if in theory everyone moved to EV, we would need about 6x times more electricity than we have now. And while I would definitely appreciate development in nuclear energy, this will take decades at minimum. And serious upgrades to power grids.

And it makes for one gigantic problem. When everything runs on electricity, blackout becomes apocalypse. Even big solar storm could plunge such society back to medieval ages, if not stone one..


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 17, 2022)

Mescalamba said:


> They also I think still have perk of being able to output burst power, while remaining non-exploded. Reason why traditional flash for mirorless or DSLR still use older type rechargeable batteries.
> 
> Reason why EVs are still no go is same as hundred years ago. Too heavy, not enough capacity, slow to recharge.
> 
> ...



Yeah i think so EV's the battery are a high percentage of the weight and the cost. So cost per watt must be horrendous, same as watt per kilo?


----------



## bug (Jan 17, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Yeah i think so EV's the battery are a high percentage of the weight and the cost. So cost per watt must be horrendous, same as watt per kilo?


Unsafe as Li may be, few things can beat it it the weight department.
Like I said, the problem is hard and the roadblocks are very, very real. If you can't beat Li in weight, you need to beat it in density - but sine most element are way heavier than Li, you need to beat it by a hefty amount. I'm pretty sure if I was trying to find a better battery and I read everything ever written about batteries tomorrow, I still wouldn't know where to start.

Once again, unlike the movies, there's no new element with miraculous properties to synthesize either. At least not a stable one.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 17, 2022)

LiFePO4 batts are less prone to explode/burn than Li-Ion but make no mistake, they still can (because lithium is a mean element), and they are still dangerous in the wrong scenario.

Here is wikipedias explanation:



> Safety





> One important advantage over other lithium-ion chemistries is thermal and chemical stability, which improves battery safety.[30] LiFePO
> 4 is an intrinsically safer cathode material than LiCoO
> 2 and manganese dioxide spinels through omission of the cobalt, with its negative temperature coefficient of resistance that can encourage thermal runaway. The P–O bond in the (PO
> 4)3−
> ...


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 18, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> LiFePO4 batts are less prone to explode/burn than Li-Ion but make no mistake, they still can, and they are still dangerous in the wrong scenario.



All Lithium based batteries react poorly to stress and heat up enough to catch fire, if not cooled. One of biggest challenges for Rimac was how to actually cool that thing. And one can expect more fire accidents as number of EVs will go up.


Tigger said:


> Yeah i think so EV's the battery are a high percentage of the weight and the cost. So cost per watt must be horrendous, same as watt per kilo?


Its close to 1/2 of a price and 1/3 - 1/4 weight. Depends on car. Price for new is usually high enough that you can just buy a new car. And fill old one with explosives and just blow it up. Like that guy from Finland with Tesla did.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 18, 2022)

Mescalamba said:


> All Lithium based batteries react poorly to stress and heat up enough to catch fire, if not cooled.


Was not denying that but there are degrees of severity to the problem, as my explanation linked above illustrates chemically.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 18, 2022)

What boggles my mind even more than Li-ion technology being behind the requirements of our age is that governments are still pushing it to take over internal combustion engines. I mean, only electric cars in the UK from 2030? I can't see that happen on Li-ion. Sorry, green-minded people, but I really can't. I live in an apartment with no infrastructure to charge a car at home, and I don't have hours to waste at a station. Politicians of our times seem to have no connection to reality at all.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 18, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> What boggles my mind even more than Li-ion technology being behind the requirements of our age is that governments are still pushing it to take over internal combustion engines. I mean, only electric cars in the UK from 2030? I can't see that happen on Li-ion. Sorry, green-minded people, but I really can't. I live in an apartment with no infrastructure to charge a car at home, and I don't have hours to waste at a station. Politicians of our times seem to have no connection to reality at all.


I totally see it as doable, but I know congress will never approve the money needed to truly do it (it would be a very large sum).

So same end result, anyways.

Also, keep in mind statements like "all electric by 2030" probably only consider NEW car sales.  The used market will have the ICE for some time after that.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 18, 2022)

one thing is for sure.. none of the small fancy portable gadgets we depend on today would be possible without li-ion batteries.. 

trog


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 18, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I totally see it as doable, but I know congress will never approve the money needed to truly do it (it would be a very large sum).
> 
> So same end result, anyways.
> 
> Also, keep in mind statements like "all electric by 2030" probably only consider NEW car sales.  The used market will have the ICE for some time after that.


Yes, it's about new car sales, but how long will petrol be around? How long will my car last? What happens after? What about people like me, who live in an apartment? EVs as of their current state bring more questions than answers, and more complications than solutions, imo. It would be much better if industries (the main polluters of the planet) targeted zero emission standards, and governments left common people mind their own business. But no, blaming you and me for killing the planet by commuting is easier than asking their friend, Elon to develop something that's actually useful, and not just a toy for rich man-children with a serious face.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 18, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Yes, it's about new car sales, but how long will petrol be around? How long will my car last? What happens after? What about people like me, who live in an apartment? EVs as of their current state bring more questions than answers, and more complications than solutions, imo. It would be much better if industries (the main polluters of the planet) targeted zero emission standards, and governments left common people mind their own business. But no, blaming you and me for killing the planet by commuting is easier than asking their friend, Elon to develop something that's actually useful, and not just a toy for rich man-children with a serious face.



Yeah, Elon caring about the planet is a joke. His endorsement of so many cryptos, his non-stop joking around, never once trying to bring an affordable EV to the middle class that is cut down on features (trickle down my ass, we live in a two class caste system in United States and its been this way for decades, he will never saturate his first market), yet all along the way taking tax payer money for every single one of his ventures. Starlink got tax payer money, Tesla with the $7500 credit was enough to keep the company afloat during its bad years, Spacex with NASA and military contracts, as far as I am concerned he is no different than any of the many elites. Very few people actually have helped the middle class improve their lives instead of having a hyper focus on the biggest profit margin possible, OPEN AI had good intentions as a non-profit then he turned it into a for-profit last I read. 

If I am forced to go to EV someday I will be giving my money to Toyota, and I expect by end of 2020's toyota will have all solid state EV's, leaving Elon in the dust with longevity, he won't be able to convert his gigafactories to solid state as easily as he thinks. Toyota played it smart, waited for it to mature just enough. The fact Toyota is bringing solid state to market in 2026 in hybrids gives me hope, plus I trust toyota quality way more than tesla quality.

Tesla is going to be a relic of the past once toyota brings a 20k EV solid state to market in like 2030, and spacex Mars plan fails cause the hubris has blinded everyone involved in that project. Mars is brutal and no skilled worker is going to want to live and work there, when they can be on Earth making six figures and living the dream life of the 1%.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 18, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Yes, it's about new car sales, but how long will petrol be around? How long will my car last? What happens after? What about people like me, who live in an apartment?


You know how capitalism works.  If there's enough of you to justify it, there'll be stations for ICE cars.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 18, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> You know how capitalism works.  If there's enough of you to justify it, there'll be stations for ICE cars.



pretty sure it was socialist government policy in 1956 (to create the highway system with tax payer money) that created the market ability for cars to become the norm to begin with in USA.  capitalism takes a lot of undeserved credit sometimes, but eh who cares anymore at this point?


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 18, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> pretty sure it was socialist government policy in 1956 (to create the highway system with tax payer money) that created the market ability for cars to become the norm to begin with in USA.  capitalism takes a lot of undeserved credit sometimes, but eh who cares anymore at this point?


I simply mean if theres buyers, there'll be sellers.  That's capitalism 101.  Wasn't touching on how much we need government moderation in said capitalism (and yes, we do).

I haven't gone full bioshock esque rapture but I really doubt gas is going to vanish, is my point.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 18, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I simply mean if theres buyers, there'll be sellers.  That's capitalism 101.  Wasn't touching on how much we need government moderation in said capitalism (and yes, we do).
> 
> I haven't gone full bioshock esque rapture but I really doubt gas is going to vanish, is my point.



ya it def won't vanish in USA. too much variety in state sovereignty to allow that to happen, it might vanish in some states that have a knee jerk reaction, and the poor class will suffer in those states since they won't be able to buy used EV cars cheap like they have gas ones historically.


----------



## Paganstomp (Jan 18, 2022)




----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 18, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Yes, it's about new car sales, but how long will petrol be around? How long will my car last? What happens after? What about people like me, who live in an apartment? EVs as of their current state bring more questions than answers, and more complications than solutions, imo. It would be much better if industries (the main polluters of the planet) targeted zero emission standards, and governments left common people mind their own business. But no, blaming you and me for killing the planet by commuting is easier than asking their friend, Elon to develop something that's actually useful, and not just a toy for rich man-children with a serious face.


This I agree with, the all social driver's are to blame, personal transportation to me shouldn't be the first target for electrification, All public transport, commercial transport and logistics and shipping transport should have been electrified first, and as @lynx29 points to ,I think in another thread.
Construction emits over 30% co2 solve the big , conceptually necessary emitters first , then you would have the public transport network to push drivers towards.
At the minute some dik in government is arguing against personal vehicle ownership while busses and trains across the network have been cancelled , I work 36 miles away, I can't f£#@&£ walk there.


----------



## chrcoluk (Jan 18, 2022)

There may well be already amazing batteries developed but just not released, with the mobile phone industry one thing that has made it so profitable is they have mastered drip feeding improvements.

As an example if they can boost CPU power by 300%, instead of putting it on next years phone, they may give a 50% improvement over 6 generations.

Ironically my best phone for batteries is a budget model, I havent found any premium model that matches the battery capacity, probably because the premium models prioritise looks and slimness of phone over functionality.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 18, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> ya it def won't vanish in USA. too much variety in state sovereignty to allow that to happen, it might vanish in some states that have a knee jerk reaction, and the poor class will suffer in those states since they won't be able to buy used EV cars cheap like they have gas ones historically.


Even if they could, there's basically no second-hand market for EVs due to battery degradation and poor charging infrastructure. To make EVs a viable option for common people, 1. they have to be a lot cheaper, 2. battery technology has to improve, 3. charging infrastructure has to be created for people with no access to their own charging station (i.e. no garage), 4. it has to be standardised across brands. The message should be "let me help you to a more eco-friendly solution" instead of "this will happen whether you like it or not".



TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> This I agree with, the all social driver's are to blame, personal transportation to me shouldn't be the first target for electrification, All public transport, commercial transport and logistics and shipping transport should have been electrified first, and as @lynx29 points to ,I think in another thread.
> Construction emits over 30% co2 solve the big , conceptually necessary emitters first , then you would have the public transport network to push drivers towards.
> At the minute some dik in government is arguing against personal vehicle ownership while busses and trains across the network have been cancelled , I work 36 miles away, I can't f£#@&£ walk there.


I agree, yet I see no indication of public transport going in the electric direction. BP on the other hand has already started advertising the "all-electric 2030" on youtube, the damn hypocrites.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 18, 2022)

There needs to be a certain amount of cable less charging slots, where you don't need a cable plugging in. Could possibly even have one setup outside of your house.



chrcoluk said:


> There may well be already amazing batteries developed but just not released, with the mobile phone industry one thing that has made it so profitable is they have mastered drip feeding improvements.
> 
> As an example if they can boost CPU power by 300%, instead of putting it on next years phone, they may give a 50% improvement over 6 generations.
> 
> Ironically my best phone for batteries is a budget model, I havent found any premium model that matches the battery capacity, probably because the premium models prioritise looks and slimness of phone over functionality.



It's the mid range phones that have the best battery life, but who wants a mid range phone.


----------



## AusWolf (Jan 18, 2022)

Tigger said:


> It's the mid range phones that have the best battery life, but who wants a mid range phone.


I do!  What can a high-end phone do that a mid-range one can't, anyway?


----------



## chrcoluk (Jan 18, 2022)

Tigger said:


> There needs to be a certain amount of cable less charging slots, where you don't need a cable plugging in. Could possibly even have one setup outside of your house.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the mid range phones that have the best battery life, but who wants a mid range phone.


Serves me well as a work phone, it lasts almost a week between charges, over 5000mah capacity.

In addition it has a camera better than a older flagship I have, I think we getting to the point with phones, where the added value is diminishing on the top end.


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 18, 2022)

chrcoluk said:


> Serves me well as a work phone, it lasts almost a week between charges, over 5000mah capacity.
> 
> In addition it has a camera better than a older flagship I have, I think we getting to the point with phones, where the added value is diminishing on the top end.


Curious, what phone you have? Myself I bought AsusROG 3 for same reason. Sure its gamer phone, but for everyday use its kinda really good, very fast and battery last days.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 18, 2022)

Mescalamba said:


> Reason why EVs are still no go is same as hundred years ago. *Too heavy, not enough capacity, slow to recharge.*


That's true of Lithium batteries as well.


Mescalamba said:


> They can push it as much as they want, but unless someone makes a lot better battery (major breakthrough required), or real fuel cell,* its just destined to fail.*


This!



bug said:


> Unsafe as Li may be, few things can beat it it the weight department.


That is an aspect we should care less about.


bug said:


> Once again, unlike the movies, there's no new element with miraculous properties to synthesize either.


We don't need new elements. We need creative thinking to formulate better chemistries from the existing lot.



R-T-B said:


> LiFePO4 batts are less prone to explode/burn than Li-Ion but make no mistake, they still can (because lithium is a mean element), and they are still dangerous in the wrong scenario.
> 
> Here is wikipedias explanation:
> 
> ​


While that is correct, the problem is volume. In small amounts, yes LiFePo is safer by far. But in large battery packs like the type that go into vehicles, cascade and runaway effects apply dramatically. The danger is reduced, sure, but not by nearly enough.

The solution is NOT Lithium based.


----------



## bug (Jan 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is an aspect we should care less about.


As long as those batteries have to move, I don't see how weight can be ignored.


lexluthermiester said:


> We don't need new elements.


There aren't any, so yeah...


lexluthermiester said:


> We need creative thinking to formulate better chemistries from the existing lot.


Maybe. Or maybe we need some outside-the-box thinking and another way to harness electricity. Both easier said than done


----------



## trog100 (Jan 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's true of Lithium batteries as well.
> 
> This!
> 
> ...



so far lithium is doing me okay.. but then again i aint daft enough to own an electric car.. for anything more than short local trips i think they are a waste of space.. more so when governments start charging a mileage tax in an attempt to get the lost gas tax back.. i do own a couple of electric bikes though.. 

trog


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 18, 2022)

Give me an EV that uses Molten Metal Batteries


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 18, 2022)

bug said:


> As long as those batteries have to move, I don't see how weight can be ignored.


We're not talking about lead-acid kinds of weight. NiMH batteries are only 15% to 20% heavier depending on formulation and packaging. That's not a lot when considering weight in the context of a battery pack being compared to the rest of the mass of the vehicle in question.


bug said:


> There aren't any, so yeah...


That's not true, but that's a completely different topic altogether.


bug said:


> Maybe. Or maybe we need some outside-the-box thinking and another way to harness electricity. Both easier said than done


True. We need a breakthrough somewhere because the status-quo is not acceptable.



trog100 said:


> so far lithium is doing me okay.. but then again i aint daft enough to own an electric car..


And there we are. Small amounts of it are ok. Still risky as a phone or tablet battery catching fire can still burn a house down, but the risk is much smaller than packing several hundred kilograms of the stuff into a car...


trog100 said:


> i do own a couple of electric bikes though..


That's something I can get behind as well. Smaller battery packs and if they catch fire, it's a very easy task to get off of a bike. I actually want one. 29" wide wheel version.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's not true, but that's a completely different topic altogether.


The rare earth lab world says hello.


----------



## seth1911 (Jan 18, 2022)

I think its the pricepoint.

On the CPU with Silicon its the same, there are new techniques but no one will use it. (Graphene, Gallium et all.)

In 2010 i read an article about the future CPU in the comming 10 years, it will use Graphene and Gallium et all, now 12 years later nothing happens still Silicon but now with 5 GHz stock boost Clocks.
If we compare one core of  a I7 860 on the same clock with a I7 12700 core, we get maybe about 93% performance gain in 13 years.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 18, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> The rare earth lab world says hello.


What I meant was that the periodic table is far from complete.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 18, 2022)

i aint gonna knock lithium batteries.. they have pretty much change the world as we know it.. the power they can produce is remarkable.. 

i have a small-ish jump start pack.. it can easily fit in one hand or a large pocket.. it has the power to jump start a large diesel engine.. i would not have believed it if there wasnt youtube videos showing them in action.. 

there is one video of a guy who owns a large shovel truck.. its lead acid batteries died years ago..  he used this pissy little lithium jump start device to start the bloody thing.. remarkable.. 

trog


----------



## bug (Jan 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> What I meant was that the periodic table is far from complete.


Oh, it's absolutely complete. Everything after actinides is only made in the lab and unstable. There can't be anything stable with a nucleus that big, weak interaction says.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 18, 2022)

bug said:


> Oh, it's absolutely complete. Everything after actinides is only made in the lab and unstable.


That statement is deeply flawed as it contradicts itself. It is also incorrect. All of the elements we have made occur in nature under extreme situations. Our star system does not facilitate conditions for those elements to occur naturally and as such we can only create & study them through artificial means.


bug said:


> There can't be anything stable with a nucleus that big, weak interaction says.


Rubbish. We just haven't progressed far enough to have discovered both the isotopes of heavy elements that can and will be stable and discovered how to make them. Remember, atomic/nuclear science is still *very* young. We have *A LOT* left to learn!


----------



## bug (Jan 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That statement is deeply flawed as it contradicts itself.
> 
> Rubbish. We just haven't progressed far enough to have discovered both the isotopes of heavy elements that can and will be stable and discovered how to make them. Remember, atomic/nuclear science is still *very* young. We have *A LOT* left to learn!


There is nothing to learn here though. Protons are positively charged, the force holding them together is only ~100x stronger than the electric force pushing them apart. When the nucleus has 250 particles or more, protons start to be far enough from each other the weak interaction won't hold them together anymore (it has a short range). That's why fission happens naturally. That's why you can't put more protons together than the nature already has.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 19, 2022)

bug said:


> There is nothing to learn here though. Protons are positively charged, the force holding them together is only ~100x stronger than the electric force pushing them apart. When the nucleus has 250 particles or more, protons start to be far enough from each other the weak interaction won't hold them together anymore (it has a short range). That's why fission happens naturally. That's why you can't put more protons together than the nature already has.


While I could address these points and explain why they are both correct and incorrect, this is not the place for that discussion and I'm not spending that kind of time here. I'm just going to end off by saying there is more involved that you seem aware of.


----------



## bug (Jan 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> While I could address these points and explain why they are both correct and incorrect, this is not the place for that discussion and I'm not spending that kind of time here. I'm just going to end off by saying there is more involved that you seem aware of.


Maybe send me a PM if you find the time? I'm always looking to learn more about these things (full disclosure: I am _not_ an expert in nuclear physics ).


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 19, 2022)

bug said:


> Maybe send me a PM if you find the time? I'm always looking to learn more about these things (full disclosure: I am _not_ an expert in nuclear physics ).


I of course meant no offense to you. To explain why stable super heavy element isotopes are possible in certain conditions would take days of typing and even then I would only scratch the surface and not enough to help you fully understand. I will grant you that WE, here on Earth, might never discover a way to create them, but such is a far cry from saying they are impossible to discover.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> I of course meant no offense to you. To explain why stable super heavy element isotopes are possible in certain conditions would take days of typing and even then I would only scratch the surface and not enough to help you fully understand. I will grant you that WE, here on Earth, might never discover a way to create them, but such is a far cry from saying they are impossible to discover.



I was explaining to my GF the other day that the silver her chain is made from is only made when a star explodes.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 19, 2022)

Tigger said:


> I was explaining to my GF the other day that the silver her chain is made from is only made when a star explodes.


True.


----------



## bug (Jan 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> I of course meant no offense to you.


None taken.


lexluthermiester said:


> To explain why stable *super heavy element isotopes are possible in certain conditions *would take days of typing and even then I would only scratch the surface and not enough to help you fully understand. I will grant you that WE, here on Earth, might never discover a way to create them, but such is a far cry from saying they are impossible to discover.


I'm still not sure that would qualify as a new element any more than the rest of the synthetic elements do. And I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for that to fix my phone battery problem


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 19, 2022)

IMHO, space could be good source of energy and experimenting with materials that don't work on Earth. Low to no gravity, extreme heat and cold. And ofc vacuum.

Question is, how to get it back to Earth.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 19, 2022)

Mescalamba said:


> IMHO, space could be good source of energy and experimenting with materials that don't work on Earth. Low to no gravity, extreme heat and cold. And ofc vacuum.
> 
> Question is, how to get it back to Earth.



Laser? convert the heat back into electricity, also cooling the high powered laser would be no problem.


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 19, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Laser? convert the heat back into electricity, also cooling the high powered laser would be no problem.


Hm, wonder if that could work. Problem would be probably possibility of weaponization.  Golden Eye stuff.


----------



## bug (Jan 19, 2022)

Mescalamba said:


> Hm, wonder if that could work. Problem would be probably possibility of weaponization.  Golden Eye stuff.


It's not that easy to weaponize laser. It requires maintaining the beam on the target for (tens of) seconds, which is not so easy when targeting moving stuff.
That said, I have read about a project back in 2000s about capturing sunlight in orbit, converting it (UV? can't remember exactly) and sending it down to Earth. The aim back then was to light up a bulb. I haven't heard anything about that since.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 19, 2022)

bug said:


> It's not that easy to weaponize laser.


That depends on the kind of harm you want to inflict and the type of laser you use to do it.


----------



## bug (Jan 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That depends on the kind of harm you want to inflict and the type of laser you use to do it.


The problem I see is that you can't gather too much power in orbit. The best you can do is accumulate energy somehow and then release it. That would be a pulse laser, which I think is pretty effective. The alternative would be a rather anemic, continuous beam. You could use that to set a building (fuel depot?) on fire.
So yes, possible, but rather inefficient. Or maybe my imagination isn't vivid enough.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 19, 2022)

Can you not "fire" plasma?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 19, 2022)

bug said:


> The problem I see is that you can't gather too much power in orbit.


Wait, what? Orbit? What did I miss? Nevermind, we're off-topic here. Let's rope it in folks...


----------



## bug (Jan 19, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Can you not "fire" plasma?


Through the atmosphere? Probably not.
I mean, you can, but it would cool off long before it would reach its target.


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 20, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Can you not "fire" plasma?


Lightning would like to disagree


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 20, 2022)

Athlonite said:


> Lightning would like to disagree


We should harvest that. 

But it would probably fuck up atmosphere, so rather not.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 20, 2022)

There needs to be a fundamental change in the way batteries work. I don't know what or how this would work, but needs to somehow move away from the chemicals we are using now for battery technology. I wish i understood exactly how battery tech works, but i don't. I get the anode-cathode bit but don't understand how the chemicals, lithium, is used in the battery. What stores the power?

Is it not going to change for the next X years? or s there going to be a magic discovery that will be a revelation for battery tech. 

There is no doubt there needs to be something, imo battery's in most mobile devices are rubbish.


----------



## bug (Jan 20, 2022)

Tigger said:


> There needs to be a fundamental change in the way batteries work. I don't know what or how this would work, but needs to somehow move away from the chemicals we are using now for battery technology. I wish i understood exactly how battery tech works, but i don't. I get the anode-cathode bit but don't understand how the chemicals, lithium, is used in the battery. What stores the power?
> 
> Is it not going to change for the next X years? or s there going to be a magic discovery that will be a revelation for battery tech.
> 
> There is no doubt there needs to be something, imo battery's in most mobile devices are rubbish.


Here's a simple explanation: https://depts.washington.edu/matseed/batteries/MSE/components.html

Basically electrons flow from the anode to the cathode and that discharges the battery. Recharging is the process of herding the electrons back through the electrolyte to the anode.
And we want to do this:
a) quickly, so we can charge in minutes, not hours
b) efficiently, without "using up" any of the materials involved
c) without releasing too much heat either

That's a tall order, if there ever was one. So yes, chemicals and chemistry as we know them today most likely aren't the solution we're looking for.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2022)

Tigger said:


> In the past 50 years Electronics technology has come a long way. Now we have mobile computers, mobile phones and a whole host of other tech that has had years of ever increasing and improving development, but not battery technology, why not?
> 
> Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop? is it related to the car and petrol industry? if battery technology had got better in relation to other electronic development then E vehicles would be much more viable. The biggest cost and weight in a EV is the battery's, in todays high tech world this seems very backward in relation to other tech.


Physics.  Capacitors can hold a lot more electrons per kg but they also can't hold them for very long before the electrons escape.  Batteries hold electrons for a long time, but comparatively, they entrap far less per kg.  Decades of research has gone into engineering hybrid devices that act like a capacitor for charging and a battery for retention.  There's been successes, but then they run into problems with endurance (charge/drain cycles).

There is little evidence to suggest commercial batteries will get much better than Li-ion available today.  Most R&D is going into eliminating cobalt (mostly sourced from Africa) from Li-ion production.


----------



## damric (Jan 20, 2022)

More stuff needs to be movement powered, possibly using piezoelectric effect and human power.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 20, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Physics.  Capacitors can hold a lot more electrons per kg but they also can't hold them for very long before the electrons escape.  Batteries hold electrons for a long time, but comparatively, they entrap far less per kg.



I have some large super-capacitors but they each hold about as much energy as an AA battery.



bug said:


> Recharging is the process of herding the electrons back through the electrolyte to the anode.
> And we want to do this:
> a) quickly, so we can charge in minutes, not hours



I still like the idea of a standardized battery that one swaps out at the station.


----------



## bug (Jan 20, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I still like the idea of a standardized battery that one swaps out at the station.


Then you want them to be light enough so you can move them without a forklift.
And then there's the issue of ownership/warranty... It's pretty messed up.

Edit: I believe this is mandatory: https://www.facebook.com/PinnacleMotorWorks/videos/mercedes-aa-class/593812404556647/


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 20, 2022)

bug said:


> Then you want them to be light enough so you can move them without a forklift.
> And then there's the issue of ownership/warranty... It's pretty messed up.



What's the avg ecar battery about 1/3rd or more of the gross weight


----------



## Shrek (Jan 20, 2022)

bug said:


> Then you want them to be light enough so you can move them without a forklift.



An excellent point


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 20, 2022)

Vaguely OT but relevant to energy storage.









						Gravity Energy Storage Will Show Its Potential in 2021
					

Gravitricity and Energy Vault are pioneering a radical new alternative to batteries for grid storage




					spectrum.ieee.org
				




And it looks awesome.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 20, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> Vaguely OT but relevant to energy storage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. I wonder what the balance of power used to raise the weight and generated dropping it is? I suppose it depends how they are raising it it.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 20, 2022)

As I understand it, lithium batteries don't so much lose capacity as suffer increased internal resistance; so old car batteries would still be good for lower _*power*_ applications.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 20, 2022)

bug said:


> So yes, chemicals and chemistry as we know them today most likely aren't the solution we're looking for.


Hell, lithium was outdated decades ago. We really need to explore and refine alternate chemistries not involving lithium.



Andy Shiekh said:


> lithium batteries don't so much lose capacity as suffer increased internal resistance


This is partly correct. The chemistry degrades to the point where it loses some capacity *and* increases internal resistance. If we can find a way to do....



FordGT90Concept said:


> Most R&D is going into eliminating cobalt (mostly sourced from Africa) from Li-ion production.


...this, lithium formulations would become more durable(more charge/discharge cycles), safer(because cobalt and lithium react well together) and less costly(because cobalt is expensive).

There are very good articles about this subject at the links below;
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/reducing-reliance-cobalt-lithium-ion-batteries
https://cen.acs.org/energy/energy-storage-/Lithium-ion-batteries-cobalt-free/98/i29

BTW, Welcome back Ford! Good to see you again!


----------



## Shrek (Jan 20, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is partly correct. The chemistry degrades to the point where it loses some capacity *and* increases internal resistance.



So still good to use for household storage for solar cells.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 20, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> So still good to use for household storage for solar cells.


I wouldn't. Once the cells degrade beyond 15% loss, the degradation generally cascades. That curve is startling. They also have a tendency of becoming more dangerous as they degrade. Reusing them is a bad idea. Best to recycle them at that point.


----------



## bug (Jan 20, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> I wouldn't. Once the cells degrade beyond 15% loss, the degradation generally cascades. That curve is startling. They also have a tendency of becoming more dangerous as they degrade. Reusing them is a bad idea. Best to recycle them at that point.


For bonus points, when one cell goes poof, it tends to cascade


----------



## Mescalamba (Jan 20, 2022)

bug said:


> Here's a simple explanation: https://depts.washington.edu/matseed/batteries/MSE/components.html
> 
> Basically electrons flow from the anode to the cathode and that discharges the battery. Recharging is the process of herding the electrons back through the electrolyte to the anode.
> And we want to do this:
> ...



There are physical limits, so one would need to find either new material, or composite, or somehow bend rules.

The issue is for example C and A together. Charging requires moving electrons, movement requires energy, which causes heating and simply put it will always do that in pretty much all materials used today. Not mentioning you do waste about 20% of electricity required to fuel battery (lost during recharge).

Gas is insanely energy dense fuel, so even when gas vehicles have fairly low effectivity, they have no issues with refueling or capacity.

IMHO intense research in ways to further improve gas engine would be pretty good too. There are aspects that will require gas or diesel cars in the future, probably even in case of battery tech/material breakthrough.

As for B, wearout is not possible to avoid, only solution would be if charged and discharged state were actually different material altogether. Which would require something we cant do, creating matter from energy.

There is quite decent possibility, that batteries in current sense are pretty much impossible to improve due physical laws. Maybe we dont need better bateries, maybe we need completely different approach.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

bug said:


> For bonus points, when one cell goes poof, it tends to cascade


This too.


----------



## lightzout (Jan 21, 2022)

Tigger said:


> In the past 50 years Electronics technology has come a long way. Now we have mobile computers, mobile phones and a whole host of other tech that has had years of ever increasing and improving development, but not battery technology, why not?
> 
> Is it because it is a difficult technology to develop? is it related to the car and petrol industry? if battery technology had got better in relation to other electronic development then E vehicles would be much more viable. The biggest cost and weight in a EV is the battery's, in todays high tech world this seems very backward in relation to other tech.


A part of that is how and what more advanced batteries are made from. But what do mean by "behind the times"? What other times have there been better batteries? The amount of money and research into the next big thing is in development all over the world.  The real question is how and where are we going to store all the old batteries. Like the promise of nuclear power the promise of "greener" energy has a cost ofn the backend. But I dont think there is a lack of funding or research for batteries and lithium has really made power options better considering how short NiCd batteries lived in early cordless power tools.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Hell, lithium was outdated decades ago. We really need to explore and refine alternate chemistries not involving lithium.


Only outdated if there is something better, man.  That's what we're missing.


----------



## bug (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> This too.


50 hit combo! Li battery wins! Flawless victory!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Only outdated if there is something better, man. That's what we're missing.


And that school of thought is why we don't have a replacement. Just because there's nothing better doesn't mean what exists is not obsolete. Chemical engineers need to stop looking for ways to improve lithium formulations and look for chemistries that do not carry serious safety hazards. Perhaps even improve upon the NiMH formulations or explore experimental chemistries like NickelCopperCarbonPolymer for example. That formulation showed great potential but was trash-canned for reasons that was never explained. And there are more chemistries to be explored, all of which do not suffer from serious fire safety problems.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 21, 2022)

Why are the cells so small? Seems to me that increases the chance of failure as one needs so many.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Why are the cells so small? Seems to me that increases the chance of failure as one needs so many.


It's a safety thing. Making large lithium batteries becomes exponentially more dangerous as you increase mass. Keeping individual cells small and in large packs reduces the danger level, but only to a certain degree which is why they're not allowed to be shipped in bulk on aircraft.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 21, 2022)

I thought that once a fire starts it spreads to healthy cells.


----------



## Frick (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> And that school of thought is why we don't have a replacement. Just because there's nothing better doesn't mean what exists is not obsolete. Chemical engineers need to stop looking for ways to improve lithium formulations and look for chemistries that do not carry serious safety hazards. Perhaps even improve upon the NiMH formulations or explore experimental chemistries like NickelCopperCarbonPolymer for example. That formulation showed great potential but was trash-canned for reasons that was never explained. And there are more chemistries to be explored, all of which do not suffer from serious fire safety problems.



Afaik there's absolutely research into it, but as always the downside is that one has to take into account the economic aspects of the modern world.

And yes @FordGT90Concept plz post more.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I thought that once a fire starts it spreads to healthy cells.


Depends on how bad it is. However, the general idea is that instead of one big cell going off like a gasoline bomb, if small cells catch fire there is potentially enough time for people to notice it and escape the area/vehicle before it get's out of control. The bad thing is that once lithium start burning, it's very difficult to put it out because there is plenty of oxygen in the battery itself to sustain the reactions. For these reasons using lithium batteries is a very dangerous and bad idea in vehicles.



Frick said:


> Afaik there's absolutely research into it, but as always the downside is that one has to take into account the economic aspects of the modern world.


Economies of scale are a factor. When you start to mass produce a thing it becomes less expensive. This was true even for early lithium batteries. Early costs should not be a limiting factor.


----------



## Frick (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Economies of scale are a factor. When you start to mass produce a thing it becomes less expensive. This was true even for early lithium batteries. Early costs should not be a limiting factor.


 Agreed. But until mass producing is proven to work it's a risk, and in a world of chasing those quarterly results it's a tough sell. It will happen sooner or later (when the risk vs reward calculations look good enough) but until then improving lithium batteries is a good thing.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's a safety thing. Making large lithium batteries becomes exponentially more dangerous as you increase mass. Keeping individual cells small and in large packs reduces the danger level, but only to a certain degree which is why they're not allowed to be shipped in bulk on aircraft.


Its also just hard to get the chemistry to work the same as you scale up the size of the cell.

In a traditional cylindrical cell anyway.  The BYD Blade cell is a lot larger than a typical round cell or pouch cell and is supposedly able to be punchered and not catch fire. The chemistry is largely the same, it just comes down to the amount of surface area the cell has to dispate the heat when the cell is penetrated by a foreign object.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Its also just hard to get the chemistry to work the same as you scale up the size of the cell.


While true, it's a manageable factor. The main reason is safety.



Frick said:


> Agreed. But until mass producing is proven to work it's a risk, and in a world of chasing those quarterly results it's a tough sell.


This is why we need leaders of industry to push the issue. Quarterlies go out the window when there is a motivating push.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> While true, it's a manageable factor. The main reason is safety.


Safety is a huge part for sure and kinda all tied together in making the cell stable.  

I don't think Tesla is sitting a 4680 cell that meets all their performance expectations, is easy to manufacture and all the rest that make to it viable and are just holding off on it to get safety margins where they need to be.


lexluthermiester said:


> This is why we need leaders of industry to push the issue. Quarterlies go out the window when there is a motivating push.


I think development is going about as fast as it can go without throwing money at every potential possible path which would eventually lead to chasing down a ton of dead ends and wasted resources.  Its not easy stuff, anyone that thinks Panasonic and LG are just sitting around with the same old thing for last 10-15 years is naive.   Its taken decades to get lithium batteries to whree they are today and even regular Li-ion batteries have improved quite a bit in just the last 8-10 years in power density.

Breakthroughs are going to come from academia and startups.  Its kinda hard to follow everything through the investor speculation craziness but there is lots of stuff going on at QuantumScape and they seem like they are the closest to a next gen battery tech.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 21, 2022)

"Why is battery technology so behind the times?"

I would say that the Eneloop was quite an improved Ni-MH battery.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

Operandi said:


> I think development is going about as fast as it can go


This is not true. As was discussed earlier, companies are heavily invested in current formulations and changing to a new one is costly. No one is eager to change. We the people need to motivate them to develop and use better, safer chemistries/formulations.


Andy Shiekh said:


> I would say that the Eneloop was quite an improved Ni-MH battery.


True! Best NiMH batteries I've ever owned. This chemistry is nearly on par with lithium and with no safety issues at all.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 24, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is not true. As was discussed earlier, companies are heavily invested in current formulations and changing to a new one is costly. No one is eager to change. We the people need to motivate them to develop and use better, safer chemistries/formulations.


Yeah, Samsung, Panasonic, and LG are all largely making the same thing but even traditional Li-ion cells have made quite a bit of progress over the last 10 years.  The compact battery packs that came with BOSCH drill thats probably 8-10 years old now were 1.3Ah, new ones of the same size and weight are 2.0Ah.  Maybe they are dragging their feet somewhat on R&D but its not like there is some easy solution to a better battery just sitting there on it, thats what all the startups are pushing for and they've been at it for like a decade now.  Also if it was that easy China would have figured it out and put Samsung, LG and everyone else out of business long ago.



lexluthermiester said:


> True! Best NiMH batteries I've ever owned. This chemistry is nearly on par with lithium and with no safety issues at all


Eneloops are nice and all but NiMH is nowhere near the energy density or the specif energy output of Li-ion.  Can you imagine what a NiMH powered sawzaw or what laoptop computer would be like those cells?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 24, 2022)

Operandi said:


> NiMH is nowhere near the energy density or the specif energy output of Li-ion


85% to 90% is nowhere near? Total nonsense.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 24, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> And that school of thought is why we don't have a replacement. Just because there's nothing better doesn't mean what exists is not obsolete.


It kinda does...  I think what you mean is it doesn't mean they are technologically sufficient for the task, and I never claimed they were.



Operandi said:


> Eneloops are nice and all but NiMH is nowhere near the energy density or the specif energy output of Li-ion. Can you imagine what a NiMH powered sawzaw or what laoptop computer would be like those cells?


My old Compaq Contura 486 was Nimh powered...  it's been done.  It'd be heavier yes but not outrageously so.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 25, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I think what you mean is it doesn't mean they are technologically sufficient for the task


Last time I checked, that is what obsolete means, almost verbatim.



R-T-B said:


> My old Compaq Contura 486 was Nimh powered... it's been done. It'd be heavier yes but not outrageously so.


I would prefer it, even if it was less efficient.


----------



## bug (Jan 25, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> I would prefer it, even if it was less efficient.


You would, but the environment wouldn't be happy about the Ni


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 25, 2022)

bug said:


> You would, but the environment wouldn't be happy about the Ni


Nickel is not harmful to the environment. It is a very common element.


----------



## bug (Jan 25, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Nickel is not harmful to the environment. It is a very common element.


It's not that common and it's compounds are carcinogenic. Also, afaik, recycling it is not that easy.

As for energy density, Wikipedia* lists 250-693 Wh/L for Li-ion and 140-300 Wh/L for NiMH. that's 50%, not 85-90%. It's not bad, but we're talking double the volume for the same amount of energy.

*sorry, couldn't think of something more reliable otoh


----------



## trog100 (Jan 25, 2022)

the big advantage with lithium is that it dosnt self discharge.. picking up devices with flat batteries and the only way you could guaranty they would function was charge them before use did my head in.. 

i go back to the ni-cad days and do know what the standard procedure used to be.. "charge overnight before use".. not quite the same as just picking up and using which is what lithium provides..

i have lithium batteries that have stood for several years you can still just pick them up and use them.. mostly they will still have a good charge in them..

trog


----------



## bug (Jan 25, 2022)

trog100 said:


> the big advantage with lithium is that it dosnt self discharge.. picking up devices with flat batteries and the only way you could guaranty they would function was charge them before use did my head in..
> 
> i go back to the ni-cad days and do know what the standard procedure used to be.. "charge overnight before use".. not quite the same as just picking up and using which is what lithium provides..
> 
> ...


It's what this thread is about: the whole battery problem has so many dimensions, it's practically impossible to balance them all at the same time. It's why I (and others) have said, we may need a fresh start or some out-of-the-box thinking instead.

And what people don't want to admit is that oil, despite its CO2 and being non-renewable problems, addresses almost everything else quite nicely. That's what makes it hard to move off oil: it has set the bar pretty damn high.


----------



## Wirko (Jan 25, 2022)

Flow batteries are hardly ever mentioned in discussions about EV batteries, I'm wondering how much research is being done on them currently. Some are supposed to have an incredible energy density of 1400 Wh/kg. There are big issues of course, like low power density, highly reactive chemicals, and also I'm not sure how they connect many cells in series, given that they all share a common flow of electrolyte.


----------



## bug (Jan 25, 2022)

Wirko said:


> Flow batteries are hardly ever mentioned in discussions about EV batteries, I'm wondering how much research is being done on them currently. Some are supposed to have an incredible energy density of 1400 Wh/kg. There are big issues of course, like low power density, highly reactive chemicals, and also I'm not sure how they connect many cells in series, given that they all share a common flow of electrolyte.


Just goes to show labs have been places where those of us untrained in the field can only begin to imagine...


----------



## trog100 (Jan 25, 2022)

bug said:


> It's what this thread is about: the whole battery problem has so many dimensions, it's practically impossible to balance them all at the same time. It's why I (and others) have said, we may need a fresh start or some out-of-the-box thinking instead.
> 
> And what people don't want to admit is that oil, despite its CO2 and being non-renewable problems, addresses almost everything else quite nicely. That's what makes it hard to move off oil: it has set the bar pretty damn high.



as i have said before i am quite happy with the current lithium technology.. it does what i want it to and i dont expect miracles..  i cant help thinking that some people do.. 

trog


----------



## bug (Jan 25, 2022)

trog100 said:


> as i have said before i am quite happy with the current lithium technology.. it does what i want it to


Either it gives you a cheap EV that you can charge in no time or you have some really low expectations.


trog100 said:


> and i dont expect miracles..


Me neither.


trog100 said:


> i cant help thinking that some people do..
> 
> trog


Because... why not?


----------



## Operandi (Jan 25, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> 85% to 90% is nowhere near? Total nonsense.


When it comes to specific density the best NiMH is comparable to some of the lower density Li-ion cells but if you compare the best of what each can do its not close.


trog100 said:


> he big advantage with lithium is that it dosnt self discharge.. picking up devices with flat batteries and the only way you could guaranty they would function was charge them before use did my head in..
> 
> i go back to the ni-cad days and do know what the standard procedure used to be.. "charge overnight before use".. not quite the same as just picking up and using which is what lithium provides..
> 
> i have lithium batteries that have stood for several years you can still just pick them up and use them.. mostly they will still have a good charge in them..


That and internal resistance, and charge cycles are also aspects where Li-ion blow away NiMH.  Not only do they hold more power (amp hours), you can access more of it (watts), you can put it back in faster, they hold their charge longer (self discharge), you can charge them more times (life cycle), and you don't have to specific about how you charge them (maintenance).  

I remember using my grandpas pretty expensive Milwaukee NiMH tools as a kid and performance was not even close, and the tools weighed a ton compared to even mid range modern Ryobi or Ridged tools let alone a modern equivalent Milwaukee, Dewalt, Bosch or similar which perform essentially as good as a corded tool.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 25, 2022)

bug said:


> It's not that common


Rubbish! It is one of the most common metals found on Earth.


bug said:


> and it's compounds are carcinogenic.


Nickel does not cause cancer. Where are you getting this nonsense from?


bug said:


> As for energy density, Wikipedia* lists 250-693 Wh/L for Li-ion and 140-300 Wh/L for NiMH. that's 50%, not 85-90%.


Try to remember, Wikipedia is a good reference site, it is not the end-all-be-all of science data, especially chemistry. My set of AA NiMH batteries have 2500mah rating. I have a similar set of Lithium batteries and that are rated for 3000mah but only ever output 2800mah at max when new. The NiMH set is older than the lithium set and are still going strong. The lithium set is already starting to die. The NiMH cost less. and has lasted longer.



trog100 said:


> the big advantage with lithium is that it dosnt self discharge.


That's total nonsense as well. Lithium batteries have a slower standing discharge rate, but it does happen.


trog100 said:


> i go back to the ni-cad days


We were not talking about Nickel Cadmium batteries. We're talking about Nickel Metal Hydride vs Lithium Ion batteries. 

Can we stop with the disinformation?


----------



## Operandi (Jan 26, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> The NiMH cost less. and has lasted longer.


Cost less yes and while maybe true in your case this statement does not represent Li-ion vs NiMH performance.  Li-ion cells hold their charge longer, have a longer shelf life, and can go through far more charging cycles before they significantly degrade.


----------



## bug (Jan 26, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Cost less yes and while maybe true in your case this statement does not represent Li-ion vs NiMH performance.  Li-ion cells hold their charge longer, have a longer shelf life, and can go through far more charging cycles before they significantly degrade.


Yes, a coworker was telling me ever since he changed his everyday tools to 18650 cells, he literally forgets to charge them every month or so, where he would need to charge them every week or sooner on AA.
But lex is also right. If you need safety, you can probably make do with NiMH.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 26, 2022)

bug said:


> Yes, a coworker was telling me ever since he changed his everyday tools to 18650 cells, he literally forgets to charge them every month or so, where he would need to charge them every week or sooner on AA.
> But lex is also right. If you need safety, you can probably make do with NiMH.


I've never owned any NiMH tools but I've used them, performance is worlds apart.  I got a really good deal on a BOSCH 18v drill and 12v driver (8 - 10 years ago) so thats eco system I'm in now for tools (that and Ryobi for cheaper stuff), the 1.3aH batteries that came with drill still work great, they sit on the shelf all winter and near as I can tell have the same charge as they did when stopped using them.

For performance its not even close but yeah, not everything needs to be Li-ion.  Its hard on the environment and nobody is going to recycle tiny little Li-ion packs so for things that don't need the specific density of Li-ion or the weight advantage MiMH is great.  Safety yeah I guess... but unless its defective, poorly designed or abused Li-ion is safe.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 26, 2022)

Tigger said:


> This is pretty good too
> View attachment 232543



Sweet since as lot of lead acid chargers run to 14.4V



bug said:


> But lex is also right. If you need safety, you can probably make do with NiMH.



I thought LiFePO4 was pretty safe.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 26, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Rubbish! It is one of the most common metals found on Earth.
> 
> Nickel does not cause cancer. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
> 
> ...



lex.. you said while a back we see things differently.. all i can say is we sure do... he he..

i have more lithium batteries than you can shake a stick at.. the self discharge rate is pretty much none existent.. it has to be because if the cell voltage drops below a certain level the cells are f-cked..

also the self discharge rate between ni-cad and metal hydride cells is/was very similar.. they both fit in the "charge over night before use" category if you want anything like the full capacity out of them..

li-ion might well be a fire hazard if abused.. but none of the  stuff we so rely on today would be possible without it.. plus allowing for the sheer amount of lithium powered devices in use today it cant be that dangerous ether.. 

i am quite happy with lithium even if nobody else seems to be.. 

trog


----------



## Shrek (Jan 26, 2022)

Eneloop claim 70% storage after 10 years and 2100 charges

eneloop - eneloop - Panasonic


----------



## trog100 (Jan 26, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Eneloop claim 70% storage after 10 years and 2100 charges
> 
> eneloop - eneloop - Panasonic



they maybe do but i have never used those batteries and am going purely on personal experience with metal hydride batteries in general which admitted i havent used for a few years.. i ditched the technology as soon as i could.. i did use it a lot in digital cameras.. for sure it was a charge before use experience and picking up a power tool to use and finding the batteries flat was also pretty annoying and quite common..

as for your earlier comment about lifepo4 battereis being safer.. they are but dont have the same energy density as li-ion which is why most small devices use the li-ion even though it is more of a fire hazard..

the cell voltage is also different.. li-ion run between 4.2 and 3.2 volts lifepo4 run between 3.5 and 2.8 volts.. lifepo4 cells work nicely for 12 volt systems 4 cells  in series are used whereas only 3 lion cells would be used.. 4 would be too high when fully charged.. 3 of course being too low when not fully charged..

five volt usb ports are also very handy for charging single cell li-ion devices which is also a big plus for lithium cells and single cell devices..

trog


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 26, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Cost less yes and while maybe true in your case this statement does not represent Li-ion vs NiMH performance.


Yes, it does. I'm comparing Duracell NiMH AA packs to Energizer Ultimate Lithium AA packs. Both packs get the same use. The NiMH packs are older and are lasting longer. They also charge up in less time.


Operandi said:


> Li-ion cells hold their charge longer, have a longer shelf life, and can go through far more charging cycles before they significantly degrade.


Utter and complete hogwash. NiMH battery charge/discharges cycle durability is measured around 1500 to 2000 depending on the formulation. Lithium is half that at best.

The disinformation is strong in this thread.

Folks, do your homework before spouting out nonsense like this.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 26, 2022)

First electric cars with a semi-solid state battery by the world's largest lithium producer launch in a taxi fleet
					

The NIO ET7 and ET5 performance sedans that are sizing up Tesla's Model S Plaid won't be the first electric cars with semi-solid state batteries, as a humble taxi fleet just got its first delivery of EVs with such packs. Made by the world's largest lithium producer Ganfeng, the E70 electric...




					www.notebookcheck.net
				




looks like solid state EV;s are already here.

impressive. if you just recently bought a toyota corolla hyrbid or prius, your car is painfully out of date/old tech officially now.  lol


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Jan 26, 2022)

So this subject has been on my mind alot lately especially with my current solar project.

Batteries are great I've been having fun with them since I was a kid and had my first flashlight with the giant square 4.5v battery made of cardboard with two springs on top but sadly they just don't last and as others have pointed out not that environmentally friendly.

Recently we seem to see a lot more pumped hydro electric damn batteries being constructed, which led me down the rabbit hole of could this be done on a domestic scale. 

Sounds great right! 

A clean battery that has the potential to last you centuries if built correctly, sadly it's just a dream. 
Below is a photo of one water tank that would store enough water to produce 10kwh bear in mind you need 2 and alot more to supply a home with AC's running for a night.




Batteries have moved on a fair way in the last decade or so but design hasn't you might think that lithium cell in your ancient laptop is the same as a new one, looks the same and has the same voltage but density has shot up and as I pointed out with the water tank energy density is what matters.


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 26, 2022)

ThaiTaffy said:


> So this subject has been on my mind alot lately especially with my current solar project.
> 
> Batteries are great I've been having fun with them since I was a kid and had my first flashlight with the giant square 4.5v battery made of cardboard with two springs on top but sadly they just don't last and as others have pointed out not that environmentally friendly.
> 
> ...


Which is exactly why the switch to non-carbon-emitting energy sources needs to be driven by governments, not individual citizens - governments are the only entities with enough capital and land to construct the pumped-storage infrastructure necessary to replace our current, carbon-emitting, base-load infrastructure.

Such infrastructure projects would create massive numbers of jobs and be good for the planet, yet no government on this planet has the vision to implement such.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 26, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Yes, it does. I'm comparing Duracell NiMH AA packs to Energizer Ultimate Lithium AA packs. Both packs get the same use. The NiMH packs are older and are lasting longer. They also charge up in less time.


AA batteries?  Are we posting from 1994?

Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be.  You can't compare a AA battery to a standard 18650 cell or any other standard Li-ion cell.


lexluthermiester said:


> Utter and complete hogwash. NiMH battery charge/discharges cycle durability is measured around 1500 to 2000 depending on the formulation. Lithium is half that at best.
> 
> The disinformation is strong in this thread.
> 
> Folks, do your homework before spouting out nonsense like this.


I have no idea where you finding your information but its pretty much the opposite of reality from my own anecdotal experience literally every person I've ever meet that has used batteries and all the research I've seen on the subject.

Anyone using these things in real world already knows but yeah if you want numbers do you own research.  These guys have some of the most concise data in one place that makes comparing the various cells relatively easy to understand. The picture below pretty much says everything you need to know in my opinion.







lynx29 said:


> First electric cars with a semi-solid state battery by the world's largest lithium producer launch in a taxi fleet
> 
> 
> The NIO ET7 and ET5 performance sedans that are sizing up Tesla's Model S Plaid won't be the first electric cars with semi-solid state batteries, as a humble taxi fleet just got its first delivery of EVs with such packs. Made by the world's largest lithium producer Ganfeng, the E70 electric...
> ...


Thats pretty much a glorified beta test. Those types of batteries have more in common with traditional Li-ion cells than what future true solid state batteries are aiming for. Solid state batteries won't be taking over anytime soon, they really only exist in the lab and a few test mules.

They aren't ready yet, and no there isn't some global conspiracy / conclusion with battery manufactures holding it back.


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 26, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> First electric cars with a semi-solid state battery by the world's largest lithium producer launch in a taxi fleet
> 
> 
> The NIO ET7 and ET5 performance sedans that are sizing up Tesla's Model S Plaid won't be the first electric cars with semi-solid state batteries, as a humble taxi fleet just got its first delivery of EVs with such packs. Made by the world's largest lithium producer Ganfeng, the E70 electric...
> ...


Are you unable to understand the difference between "solid" and "semi-solid"?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 26, 2022)

Operandi said:


> AA batteries?  Are we posting from 1994?
> 
> Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be.  You can't compare a AA battery to a standard 18650 cell or any other standard Li-ion cell.
> 
> ...



toyota already said solid state, full solid state, is coming in mid 2020's to its hybrid line of cars. so I am not sure i agree with you


----------



## bogmali (Jan 26, 2022)

Leave the hostility at the door please or I will thread-ban you


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 26, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Last time I checked, that is what obsolete means, almost verbatim.











						Definition of OBSOLETE
					

no longer in use or no longer useful; of a kind or style no longer current : old-fashioned; indistinct or imperfect as compared with a corresponding part in related organisms : vestigial… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




We are still using Li-Ion.  So it's not obsolete.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 26, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> toyota already said solid state, full solid state, is coming in mid 2020's to its hybrid line of cars. so I am not sure i agree with you


Yeah, Toyota said that but they have shown very little and between their floundering back and forth between hybrid tech, hydrogen, and their clueless stance on EVs I have little faith in anything they say. I doubt they'll be the first with meaningful solid state packs let alone when they say they'll have it on the market.

Toyota is a lost company under shit management.  They have shown signs of turning it around but they are behind everyone in almost everything, and all their solid state talk is pretty much just that to distract investors from how bad things really are internally.  I don't doubt they are actively pursuing it because frankly they kinda have to if they are going to survive but I'd be really surprised if they are as far along as they are leading people to believe.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 27, 2022)

Operandi said:


> AA batteries? Are we posting from 1994?


Now you're just trolling me. Cut it out.


Operandi said:


> Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be.


And that is an example of your lack of understanding and why you need to be doing a LOT more reading on the subject.




__





						Rechargeable Batteries | Energizer
					

Energizer Rechargeable Batteries are designed to provide longer lasting power per charge to help you save money and keep your devices running longer.



					www.energizer.com
				



Here you go.


Operandi said:


> I have no idea where you finding your information but its pretty much the opposite of reality from my own anecdotal experience literally every person I've ever meet that has used batteries and all the research I've seen on the subject.


I'm not the one displaying a shocking lack of knowledge and experience as evidenced by the following;


Operandi said:


> Toyota is a lost company under shit management.


 The defense rests...


----------



## LabRat 891 (Jan 27, 2022)

A Taiwanese Solid-State Lithium Ceramic Battery manufacturer recently posted a Corporate Promo video, so it was recently in mind coming back across this thread.

About ProLogium


> ProLogium Technology (PLG) is a global leader in high-performing, safe and affordable battery technologies in vehicle, consumer and industry applications. Founded 15 years ago in Taiwan, ProLogium is the world’s first company to successfully develop, mass produce, and commercialize the solid-state lithium ceramic battery (SSB)


If you search for "solid-state lithium ceramic battery" you will find a lot of non-company-specific information about the relevant technology. I think they first came to my notice from a YouTuber demonstrating a free sample; including cutting the cell up while under load. That seriously impressed me.

Seemed relevent


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 27, 2022)

Wow....7 pages before this became silly.

So...let's talk about some limitation, and why battery technology is limited.  Let's also leave the politics at the door, after a good poke at a merchant of stupidity.

Musk, and by extension Tesla, have delivered exactly zero in the way of technological advancements.  If you spend all of ten seconds doing high school trig, you'd be able to see that the "new" Tesla cells hold 50% more energy (or whatever he's claiming this week).  You'd also see that the dimensions for those cells changed.  As in, most humans are bad at doing math, and missed that the "minor" increase to radius meant that the cylindrical cell actually has an internal volume that matches exactly with the increase in total stored energy.


Let's now talk about advancements.  Most of the advancements are not about the battery chemistry, they're about changing the electrodes.  Has anyone asked why?  Well, the logic is that breakdown of lithium chemistry batteries largely occurs at the interface between the electrodes and the energy storage medium.  This happens due to crystallization of the ions, and subsequent release of lithium gasses created when the battery charges too fast.
Please note that charging too fast is a problem for creation of gasses the battery has to vent, degrading the chemistry, and most frustratingly the desire of us humans to have these things charged instantly.  This is, anecdotally, how in practice NiMH (nickel metal hydride) batteries can last longer than lithium polymer chemistry...despite the ratings and technical data stating the exact opposite.  This is how your fast charging iPhone also lasts for a couple of years, but my non-fast charging Samsung smart phone is still at 70% of initial capacity 4 years after purchase.  Yeah, I've watched that anecdotally, and it seems like others in this thread are confusing anecdotal results with experimental laboratory data.


Now...about that charge density.  Did anyone here actually stay awake in high school chemistry?  I'm basically going to assume not...  I do that because there's a lot of stupidity in general (from the reporting side).  Let's walk through all of this in one shot.
1) The reason diesel trucks run on diesel is that the chemical energy available is the highest density available.  They get this distinction because diesel basically doesn't auto-ignite under pressure like octane (gas).  Because you can get a huge compression ratio, diesel is capable of turning chemical energy into mechanical energy very easily.
2) The reason that octane (gasoline) is used is that at the compression ratios it can attain it's very easy to combust fully and deliver a ton of energy.  The reason our current gas is unleaded, and if you find some old timers or farmers they say it is garbage, is because with tetra-ethyl lead that compression ratio could go much higher (and thus the inherent greater power delivery of gasoline could be realized).
3) The amount of energy in your average AA battery is more than in a rechargeable.  Why?  Well, in a one-way chemical breakdown the difference in electronegativity can be high.  That is, much higher than in a reaction which is meant to be done and undone on a regular basis.  This is where that basic high school chemistry comes into play.  Imagine for a moment the lemon with a copper and zinc spike driven into it.  You don't get to reverse that reaction, but with simply the ability to transfer ions through an electrolyte solution you get a surprising amount of power.

Now, let's talk rechargeable batteries (in the context of current cars).  You are literally charging and discharging its battery constantly.  How does it work?  Well, it's basically lead plates stored into a solution of sulfuric acid.  Just like your lithium chemistry, it develops gasseous bubbles on the plates.  Unlike Lithium chemistry though, the degredation of the electrodes is much slower because of the amount of cells and sheer volume of them.  That said, 14 volts from your alternator is used to overcome the chemistry and allow a 12 volt charge to be delivered.
Lead acid has the benefit of being relatively cheap, relatively resistant to temperature swings, and capable of delivering large amounts of power quickly.  Lithium is not so much.  You give up all of these conveniences, but in return get a much higher energy density (about 4 times in practice).  The problem is that lithium chemistry also requires a charging circuit, to try and minimize all of the costs to using them.

So, what kind of efficiencies are we talking?  Let's set lead-acid to a value of 1.  That would mean lithium ion represents 4.  This then gets silly, because octane is a 300+ value.  Does anyone else look at this basic math, and wonder how exactly a semi-truck is supposed to work?  If a semi takes three tank refills going coast to coast, and you simply converted all of its current energy storage mass to batteries, you'd basically go from 3 stops to 3*4/300 = 225.  Of course that sounds silly...so let's factor in a 15% conversion of energy from gasoline to electro-mechanical potential (losses in the drive train), and it's only 34 stops to get across the US...from the current 3.  So we are clear, this is the stupidity that places like Forbes fail to comprehend about basic math and physics.



Now...let's remove all limits on battery tech.  Let's say that you could actually get the equivalent 15% electromechanical energy of gasoline directly from a battery.  Would you want to do this?

NO!

I'd ask you a simple and stupid question.  Have you seen the explosion of a small lithium battery?  Great.  Now imagine that but 11x bigger.  You go from the danger of a hand grenade in your pocket to basically a small pipe bomb...and you'd presumably be dragging that around in the pocket of your pants.  Maybe it's acceptable to have that danger...but now imagine that you suddenly had a car that can do 3000 miles on a single charge, so you have to charge it over night once every few months.  Great.  Now imagine a puncture of that battery, and the subsequent action movie style detonation of the energy as the surrounding environment becomes a crater.
Oh, but Tesla or whomever had these batteries would simply decrease their volume by 91% to have the same power...and that decrease in weight would actually mean the range of electric vehicles would increase along with better performance due to the huge leap in power:weight ratio.  Great.  Now you've got 91% less components, so any failure means your car is grounded.  Right now, Tesla and similar designers actually balance out their batteries such that a certain amount of failures can be tolerated without consumer transparency.



Now...about the quantum, gold, and other battery technologies...  Our media sucks at reporting.  These are evolutions of the capacitor technology.  The quantum battery basically is a proof of concept that you can develop a charging circuit for capacitors that is ultra fast.  They haven't demonstrated a technology, only a concept in the lab.  The gold nanofilaments are the same thing.  Fast charge with an energy density that makes lead-acid seem like a great idea.  The hydrogen batteries...imagine the insane volatility of lithium with a dramatically decreased density, and no current storage technology.

What about Toyota's solid state battery?  Well, they're looking to commercialize the concept the first half of the 2020s.  We are four years out from this...as 2022-2025 is four years.  Let's say they have something...because their press releases are less than great.  The technology is outlined as bi-polar NiMH.  The vehicles they outlined for initial commercialization are basically the cousin of the Geo-Metro.  This means their goal is to take a small and lightweight vehicle, plug in an unknown battery tech, and potentially get 300 miles of range out of it.  Of course, let's talk manufacturing.  It's a minimum of 18-24 months to go from finalized design to manufactured product.  It's another 3-4 months to go from production volume to distribution.  Top that with another 3 months from production start to full production volume.  So...about 30 months from final designed to be able to be purchased.  New tech is going to need a testing cycle...so those batteries are going to need to be fabricated in a small batch and tested for about 3 months to get enough testing to cover charge cycles and environmental conditions.  Now, in the US we also have testing from the national highway safety institution.  That's another 3 months.  30+3+3+1 (assuming the testing units can be small batch fabricated in one month).  That's 37/42 months down...as new car models roll out middle of the year (assuming 2026 models would be available in July 2025).  This means their battery tech has another 5 months to be finalized...which makes sense if their reports of incorporating these into hybrid (tiny) vehicles.  So...the break through tech is incapable of powering a geo, it's got to pay for that with the mass of an additional combustion engine, and its goal is only to decrease charge time without impacting time to replacement.
Do we understand that this is possible without current technology being dramatically improved, and only being iterated on?  If not, then I don't understand exactly why any of the battery tech can be described as archaic, as the OP seems to conclude.



Of course...if you could decrease the mass of a car by about 80% everything just works.  That'd need aircraft grade aluminum composites, which have existed for literal decades.  That could take your battery tech that's at 9% as efficient, and make it viable for vehicles assuming that you also decreased expectations to 75% of the range of a much cheaper combustion engine.  Of course, it'd also make sure that an "antique" electric vehicle is impossible.  That is to say, cars from the 1920's still exist but any electric vehicle is entirely impossible to maintain because after at most a couple of decades the vehicles themselves would be impossible to service...because the batteries getting replaced account for the majority of the vehicle cost.  Ironically enough though, even the most long lived batteries cannot endure extended usage...and the motivation is chemistry.  This isn't about tech being slow...it's about the limits of material engineering and physics.  Neither of which is something that is capable of being overcome without novel alternative situations.


----------



## Frick (Jan 27, 2022)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Wow....7 pages before this became silly.
> 
> So...let's talk about some limitation, and why battery technology is limited.  Let's also leave the politics at the door, after a good poke at a merchant of stupidity.
> 
> ...



Post more please! Wherever you like.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 27, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Yeah, Toyota said that but they have shown very little and between their floundering back and forth between hybrid tech, hydrogen, and their clueless stance on EVs I have little faith in anything they say. I doubt they'll be the first with meaningful solid state packs let alone when they say they'll have it on the market.
> 
> Toyota is a lost company under shit management.  They have shown signs of turning it around but they are behind everyone in almost everything, and all their solid state talk is pretty much just that to distract investors from how bad things really are internally.  I don't doubt they are actively pursuing it because frankly they kinda have to if they are going to survive but I'd be really surprised if they are as far along as they are leading people to believe.



I disagree with your assumption of Toyota here. I think Toyota was playing it cautious in moving in to the EV market to fast, as the infrastructure just wasn't and still isn't there yet. Toyota has announced a full line of EV's incoming, but I think they were wise and letting the tech grow a little before getting in to it.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Jan 27, 2022)

@lilhasselhoffer  I saw your post and thought oh no a wall of text but I actually read it all and have to say good post.



Operandi said:


> Those AA lithiums from Energizer or whoever else makes them are not rechargeable, at least they are not designed to be. You can't compare a AA battery to a standard 18650 cell or any other standard Li-ion cell.


Don't type stupid crap in a forum full of intellectuals and geeks.
Lithium AA rechargeables are here and have been for a while it's a 14500 lithium cell with the voltage split pretty much. People throw the "18650" name about like it's something special when it's only a dimension.
As lilhasslehoffer and I pointed out earlier energy density is what's important that's the simple reason why fossil fuels are still about. 
My view for the last decade or so has always been micro nuclear, now that fusion (micro sun) is finally moving forward I don't think we should even bother with battery development super capacitors tiny reactors and wireless energy is where it's at. If your car and house have an unlimited source of clean energy and power to smaller devices such as watches, phones and the like can be delivered wirelessly why would we need to store energy atall


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 27, 2022)

ThaiTaffy said:


> My view for the last decade or so has always been micro nuclear, now that fusion (micro sun) is finally moving forward I don't think we should even bother with battery development super capacitors tiny reactors and wireless energy is where it's at. If your car and house have an unlimited source of clean energy and power to smaller devices such as watches, phones and the like can be delivered wirelessly why would we need to store energy atall


Yeah, no. We don't even have working (net energy gain) fusion yet, even if (and it's still an if) we do get it working it is going to take years and vast amounts of money to commercialise the tech, then it's gonna take years and vast amounts of money to actually build the power plants, and then the companies owning the plants are going to want a return on their investments. It makes zero sense to stop any and all other progress just because fusion is hopefully going to solve everything, and if you believe fusion is going to lead to a future where energy is free then I have some bad news for you.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 27, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> Yeah, no. We don't even have working (net energy gain) fusion yet, even if (and it's still an if) we do get it working it is going to take years and vast amounts of money to commercialise the tech, then it's gonna take years and vast amounts of money to actually build the power plants, and then the companies owning the plants are going to want a return on their investments. It makes zero sense to stop any and all other progress just because fusion is hopefully going to solve everything, and if you believe fusion is going to lead to a future where energy is free then I have some bad news for you.


No free lunch?


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> No free lunch?


Not as long as capitalism exists in its current form.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 27, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> Not as long as capitalism exists in its current form.


It was a rhetorical...  but short of robots that take over our government and make instant lunchables for us...  yeah no.

Besides in that scenario, the lunchables are probably made of people.  Full circle.


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> It was a rhetorical...


I'm aware, but quite a few people on this forum aren't.



R-T-B said:


> Besides in that scenario, the lunchables are probably made of people.  Full circle.


As long as the Soylent Green is made out of anti-vaxxers, I have no problems.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 27, 2022)

LabRat 891 said:


> A Taiwanese Solid-State Lithium Ceramic Battery manufacturer recently posted a Corporate Promo video, so it was recently in mind coming back across this thread.
> 
> About ProLogium
> 
> ...


This actually looks promising.


----------



## The red spirit (Jan 27, 2022)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I guess its because the world is relatively going from 0-100 real quick as far as demand for electric cars go and the industry not having enough money ploughed into the R&D department to respond to life sized RC cars.


Most EVs are too fast anyway. I sometimes look at their ads and they have really low 0-100 numbers, but at the same times they are so good, that it makes those cars barely drivable. The scary aspect isn't even that they are fast, but that they are heavy AF, most likely don't handle well at all and have disproportionally not so good brakes for car like that. And any bigger puncture and those cars start to burn and from what we know today, EV fires are really hard to put down. It must be quite boring to have a 4 second car in a world of 13 second cars. This obsession with EV 0-100 times needs to stop.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Jan 27, 2022)

Assimilator said:


> Yeah, no. We don't even have working (net energy gain) fusion yet, even if (and it's still an if) we do get it working it is going to take years and vast amounts of money to commercialise the tech, then it's gonna take years and vast amounts of money to actually build the power plants, and then the companies owning the plants are going to want a return on their investments. It makes zero sense to stop any and all other progress just because fusion is hopefully going to solve everything, and if you believe fusion is going to lead to a future where energy is free then I have some bad news for you.


I know it's unrealistic it's just what I think we "should do" I have these Idealist thoughts regularly when the pandemic started I said to my partner "the whole world should get a week to prepare then have a global lockdown for a month to stop this", 2years on I still remind her " too late now".


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 27, 2022)

The red spirit said:


> Most EVs are too fast anyway. I sometimes look at their ads and they have really low 0-100 numbers, but at the same times they are so good, that it makes those cars barely drivable. The scary aspect isn't even that they are fast, but that they are heavy AF, most likely don't handle well at all and have disproportionally not so good brakes for car like that. And any bigger puncture and those cars start to burn and from what we know today, EV fires are really hard to put down. It must be quite boring to have a 4 second car in a world of 13 second cars. This obsession with EV 0-100 times needs to stop.


What did I just read...



ThaiTaffy said:


> I know it's unrealistic it's just what I think we "should do" I have these Idealist thoughts regularly when the pandemic started I said to my partner "the whole world should get a week to prepare then have a global lockdown for a month to stop this", 2years on I still remind her " too late now".


Oh I completely agree that there is so much we SHOULD and COULD be doing as a species, the problem is that capitalism has such a stranglehold on everything that the bright future that we dream of, where literally everything is free and people can live their lives as they choose, is sadly very unlikely to happen. I'm an idealist too but I also try to be pragmatic, which often comes across as pessimistic.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 27, 2022)

ThaiTaffy said:


> Don't type stupid crap in a forum full of intellectuals and geeks.
> Lithium AA rechargeables are here and have been for a while it's a 14500 lithium cell with the voltage split pretty much. People throw the "18650" name about like it's something special when it's only a dimension.


I know that the numbers designate a form factor of a Li-ion cell but none of them is a "AA battery" because the voltage of a Li-ion cell isn't the same as Ni-MH or alkaline.

The "Energizer Ultimate Lithium" referenced AAs are not Li-ion battersy and are not rechargeable, I'm only talking about those.  Maybe you can recharge them but you are not supposed to.  I don't know what their chemistry is or how they work and I don't really care because I think disposable high-end batteries are stupid.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 27, 2022)

Operandi said:


> I know that the numbers designate a form factor of a Li-ion cell but none of them is a "AA battery" because the voltage of a Li-ion cell isn't the same as Ni-MH or alkaline.





Operandi said:


> The "Energizer Ultimate Lithium" referenced AAs are not Li-ion battersy and are not rechargeable


Older versions of those were rechargeable. Like what happens so often, Energizer switched around their lineup and the naming schemes. You're doing nothing more than trolling and nitpicking at this point.


----------



## Operandi (Jan 27, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Older versions of those were rechargeable. Like what happens so often, Energizer switched around their lineup and the naming schemes. You're doing nothing more than trolling and nitpicking at this point.


Not something I've ever seen in the real world, and they don't exist now which means they are old (probably discontinued for a reason) and irrelevant to the discussion.  You are best case scenario selectively comparing things to suite your preconceived notions, none of what you are saying reflects reality.  If you are after a specific energy density figure you can't compare a AA Li-ion battery to AA Ni-MH battery or a Li-ion AA battery to a Li-ion cell.  Nobody makes rechargeable AA Li-ion batteries aside from weird Chinese shit you see on Amazon, those form factors are obsolete for performance applications.  Compare modern Li-ion cells to modern Ni-MH (which has pretty much stagnated) cells on power to volume and weight metric not whatever old stuff you have laying around the house.

Bellow is take from https://www.epectec.com, they have the best consolidated statics on different batteries that I could find, it lines up with all the other research else I've looked at and aligns with my real world anecdotal experience.







lynx29 said:


> I disagree with your assumption of Toyota here. I think Toyota was playing it cautious in moving in to the EV market to fast, as the infrastructure just wasn't and still isn't there yet. Toyota has announced a full line of EV's incoming, but I think they were wise and letting the tech grow a little before getting in to it.


Ultimately we'll just have to wait and see.  Typically when the industry makes a big pivot being last to party is not a good thing.  

Looking at the last 10 years of their product development hasn't been particularly impressive or inspiring for the future either.  They needed BMW to build them a new Supra cause apparently didn't have the talent or enough money to do it themselves.  The 86 is co-developed with Subaru which is fine but it would be nice to know they can build a high performance car without relying one someone's technology.  The Tundra, Sequoia and and Landcruiser used the same platform and drivetrain for like 10+ years and while the Landcruiser is very capable off road (its also very expensive) its unremarkable otherwise the other two only sell because of "_Toyota reliability_" which is real thing but at some point becomes moot if you aren't producing competitive products.

That and they usually let their products do the talking but lately it seems like they making a lot of noise about their future EV line but not showing much to back it up, feels kinda desperate.  At least when Tesla announces something its either exciting, or absurdly funny, Toyota's vapoware EV line up is the most boring thing I've ever seen.  The one EV they'll have for 2023, the bZ4X looks basically like a VW ID.4 2-3 years late.  Maybe they have more in pipeline and they just aren't showing their cards but either way they have a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 27, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Not something I've ever seen in the real world, and they don't exist now which means they are old (probably discontinued for a reason) and irrelevant to the discussion.  You are best case scenario selectively comparing things to suite your preconceived notions, none of what you are saying reflects reality.  If you are after a specific energy density figure you can't compare a AA Li-ion battery to AA Ni-MH battery or a Li-ion AA battery to a Li-ion cell.  Nobody makes rechargeable AA Li-ion batteries aside from weird Chinese shit you see on Amazon, those form factors are obsolete for performance applications.  Compare modern Li-ion cells to modern Ni-MH (which has pretty much stagnated) cells on power to volume and weight metric not whatever old stuff you have laying around the house.
> 
> Bellow is take from https://www.epectec.com, they have the best consolidated statics on different batteries that I could find, it lines up with all the other research else I've looked at and aligns with my real world anecdotal experience.
> View attachment 234176
> ...



to be clear, I think Honda is the best car company in the world at the moment, and they also have or are coming in late to EV market.

but yeah that new Honda Civic re-design exterior and interior... the 2022 Civic is just drop dead sexy, i have seen one in person (but it was pre-sold) otherwise I prob would have got it over a corolla.


edit: personally I don't want EV. I plan to do a lot of road trips in the future, and last thing I want is to be sitting "fueling" my car for 3-4 hours on long trips.  where as filling up a gas tank in 2 minutes, will allow me to enjoy 3-4 more hours on the long drive to wherever it is I am heading.  not sure I get the love for EV personally, good for worker bees who never get vacations, but my job gives me 20 days vacation, so apologies for having a job that gives me quality of life? lol


----------



## Operandi (Jan 27, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> but yeah that new Honda Civic re-design exterior and interior... the 2022 Civic is just drop dead sexy, i have seen one in person (but it was pre-sold) otherwise I prob would have got it over a corolla.


The new Civic looks great, a complete 180 from the gundam on wheels thing they going on in previous generation.  I'm looking forward what the Si and Type R versions bring.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 27, 2022)

Operandi said:


> The new Civic looks great, a complete 180 from the gundam on wheels thing they going on in previous generation.  I'm looking forward what the Si and Type R versions bring.



look at the interior of the civic 2022 if you have not seen. its sexy as ****


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

Operandi said:


> View attachment 234176


Someone has to give a shout out to lead acid batteries.  Of all the kinds, they are the easiest to recycle and are generally the safest.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Someone has to give a shout out to lead acid batteries.  Of all the kinds, they are the easiest to recycle and are generally the safest.


True, but they are very heavy and not suited for many battery use situations. Still for a lot of situations they are ideal.


----------



## Wirko (Jan 28, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Bellow is take from https://www.epectec.com, they have the best consolidated statics on different batteries that I could find, it lines up with all the other research else I've looked at and aligns with my real world anecdotal experience.


The original table is probably the one at Battery University, which is a vast and excellent resource for those who want to learn about batteries.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 28, 2022)

Do the amps produced by other types of batteries compare with lead acid? I know you can get Lion battery's for a motorcycle, but don't know about a car? 

The great thing about lead acid type is they are highly recycled because of the lead in them, but are other types recyclable or just disposed of?


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Do the amps produced by other types of batteries compare with lead acid? I know you can get Lion battery's for a motorcycle, but don't know about a car?
> 
> The great thing about lead acid type is they are highly recycled because of the lead in them, but are other types recyclable or just disposed of?



most lifepo4 12 volt batteries have a built in battery management system.. this limits the maximum discharge current to mostly 1c.. a 100 ah battery would have a maximum discharge current of 100 amps..

this make them unsuitable for car batteries.. motor cycles maybe but larger vehicle batteries are best suited to lead acid.. i think lead acid is here to stay for quite some time..

its the electronic battery management system that limits the lithium discharge rate not the lithium cells.. basally they are not designed as starter batteries.. i assume because there would be no demand for them..

trog


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

Tigger said:


> The great thing about lead acid type is they are highly recycled because of the lead in them, but are other types recyclable or just disposed of?


There's virtually no li-ion recycling going on because it's not profitable.  Other than the fire hazard (extremely toxic fumes and must be extinguished with chemicals because water doesn't work), it's my chief concern with the push for battery electric vehicles.

Li-ion can't cold-crank an ICE because it would damage the battery.  You need a whole lot of li-ion cells to raise the voltage enough to get enough amps to crank it.  The battery in a Tesla, for example, could cold crank an ICE but the battery in your typical hybrid (e.g. Honda Civic Hybrid) can't so it has a lead acid battery too.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Li-ion can't cold-crank an ICE because it would damage the battery.  You need a whole lot of li-ion cells to raise the voltage enough to get enough amps to crank it.



There are cranking Li-ion batteries

Dakota Lithium 12v 60Ah Dual Purpose 1000CCA Starter Battery Plus Deep Cycle LiFePO4 Performance

1000CCA is a lot


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

$600 is a lot. 

I get the impression that this battery can't be charged via an alternator so it can't be dropped in/replace an existing lead acid battery in a car.  It's supposed to be charged using an included 12v 10 amp charger. Only works with a relatively low power alternator:


> CHARGE VIA ALTERNATOR
> Drop in replacement for lead acid and AGM starter batteries for vehicles and outboard motors. NOTE: THE DL+ 60Ah IS LIMITED TO AN ALTERNATOR CHARGING PROFILE OF *80 AMPS OR LESS*.



Interesting lithium-iron-phosphate product I didn't know about though. 


Oooo, would be nice to drop these into CyberPower UPS but I don't think the circuits in there are meant for anything other than SLA:








						Dakota Lithium 12v 7Ah Battery - Dakota Lithium Batteries
					

Built Dakota tough, this 12 volt lithium battery packs a punch. Ideal for industrial purposes where price point matters, or for outdoor uses like hiking or camping where weight is at a premium. Bulk pricing available for quantities of 2 or more.




					dakotalithium.com


----------



## Operandi (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Li-ion can't cold-crank an ICE because it would damage the battery. You need a whole lot of li-ion cells to raise the voltage enough to get enough amps to crank it. The battery in a Tesla, for example, could cold crank an ICE but the battery in your typical hybrid (e.g. Honda Civic Hybrid) can't so it has a lead acid battery too.


There are plenty of Li-ion jumper packs that start a car with a completely flat battery.  Is the lead acid battery acting as buffer in that case so it dosn't damage the jumper pack? On Teslas they have a 12v battery too for starting and/or powering up the battery management and drivetrain computers, and I think they are even lead acid.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Oooo, would be nice to drop these into CyberPower UPS but I don't think the circuits in there are meant for anything other than SLA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet, this article has in the title "THE PERFECT SLA REPLACEMENT BATTERY"

Even better, there is a 10Ah version in the same size case
Dakota Lithium 12v 10Ah Battery - Half the Weight & Twice the Power


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2022)

Operandi said:


> There are plenty of Li-ion jumper packs that start a car with a completely flat battery.  Is the lead acid battery acting as buffer in that case so it dosn't damage the jumper pack? On Teslas they have a 12v battery too for starting and/or powering up the battery management and drivetrain computers, and I think they are even lead acid.



i have such a jump start device .. there is a youtube video of some guy starting an earth moving machine with a similar one.. it dosnt need any help from a lead acid battery.. its pretty near a full short circuit and isnt designed to run for long.. but five seconds should be enough to start an engine assuming its only problem is a flat starter battery.. i think it would manage maybe two engine starts but that is about all.. and that is  remarkable for something that fits in your hand..

60 C rc batteries are quite common.. a 6 ah pack at 60 C would be 360 amps.. plenty to jump start a car engine.. several of them in fact..

trog


----------



## Shrek (Jan 29, 2022)

Operandi said:


> There are plenty of Li-ion jumper packs that start a car with a completely flat battery.  Is the lead acid battery acting as buffer in that case so it dosn't damage the jumper pack?



I'm for the buffer theory.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Someone has to give a shout out to lead acid batteries.  Of all the kinds, they are the easiest to recycle and are generally the safest.


If recycled then yes.  If they find their way anywhere else though their toxicity is through the roof.  Just a slight concern, albeit minor compared to other disadvantages with weight, density, etc.



Andy Shiekh said:


> There are cranking Li-ion batteries


Those are lithium LiFePO3 batts, not Li-Ion.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 29, 2022)

Lithium-ion battery - Wikipedia

might be said to include LiFePO4


----------



## LabRat 891 (Jan 29, 2022)

Something else I didn't see mentioned when Lead Acids came back into this conversation: 
EFB technology Lead Acid. 
Also, 
Carbon Foam AGM

Both take advantage of micro- and nano- engineering as well as allotropic carbon to enhance the Lead-Acid's performance. 
EFBs came about to address the needs of Start-Stop ICE vehicles.
Carbon Foam AGM tech is limited to Marine and Commercial Solar applications currently.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 29, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I'm for the buffer theory.



they will work without a starter battery connected which kind of suggests the buffer theory is wrong 

one other factor that isnt mentioned is you cant charge lifepo4 below 0 C it damages the cells .. something quite important with an engine starter battery.. 

trog


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's virtually no li-ion recycling going on because it's not profitable.  Other than the fire hazard (extremely toxic fumes and must be extinguished with chemicals because water doesn't work), it's my chief concern with the push for battery electric vehicles.
> 
> Li-ion can't cold-crank an ICE because it would damage the battery.  You need a whole lot of li-ion cells to raise the voltage enough to get enough amps to crank it.  The battery in a Tesla, for example, could cold crank an ICE but the battery in your typical hybrid (e.g. Honda Civic Hybrid) can't so it has a lead acid battery too.



one thing that interests me in regards to EV cars is long term sustainability. has anyone (scientist or company) actually sat down and done the math in regards to how much lithium there is (not just lithium but all the natural resources combined for a lithium battery, including the fresh water needed)

for example, short term greed is only way capitalism has ever worked. what happens if we find out that Lithium mine in Nevada only had 50-70 years of lithium in it? what do we do then? I don't know the answer, I am genuinely asking if anyone even knows how much natural resources are in the world/mineable to make x amount of batteries or y amount of years z amount of population.

NIckel is the best kind of battery I read as well, so how much Nickel is left in the world? the list goes on and on.

personally, I think what will happen one day is, we are going to wake up to a news headline that states:  "pure sand used to create silicon has run out, we thought we had more sources, but since beach sand can't be used to make silicon we are out"... like how do we know we have enough pure sand (that is required to make silicon used to make the chips in the EV)...

these mining companies probably only do short term projections, I really doubt they dig heavy 50+ years into the future...

(to be clear its not just an answer to one of these questions that matters, its an answer to all of them, in a holistic way that matters) this is what scares me the most. humans sometimes know not what they do... so to speak.

(for the record I still wish hyperloop was getting proper RND funding)


----------



## trog100 (Jan 29, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> one thing that interests me in regards to EV cars is long term sustainability. has anyone (scientist or company) actually sat down and done the math in regards to how much lithium there is (not just lithium but all the natural resources combined for a lithium battery, including the fresh water needed)
> 
> for example, short term greed is only way capitalism has ever worked. what happens if we find out that Lithium mine in Nevada only had 50-70 years of lithium in it? what do we do then? I don't know the answer, I am genuinely asking if anyone even knows how much natural resources are in the world/mineable to make x amount of batteries or y amount of years z amount of population.
> 
> ...



there is a blind belief in science that things will get fixed when they need to be.. one thing is for sure.. the planet earth will still be here when humans aint.. in the grand scheme of things do humans matter that much.. i dont think so.. 

trog


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

You can recycle battery materials pretty easily.  Well, lithium is tricky of course, but I'm sure there is a way if a resource crisis presented itself.


----------



## LabRat 891 (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> You can recycle battery materials pretty easily.  Well, lithium is tricky of course, but I'm sure there is a way if a resource crisis presented itself.


Funny you mention that. Recently, in rebuilding some power tool packs I deep dove NiCds. Most of the 'consumer-known' shortcomings have proven scientifically false.
They're also EXTREMELY recyclable, with the majority of 'new' cells reusing post-use 'waste'.
I also wasn't aware of how 'tolerant' NiCds were to misuse and abuse either.
Other than their density/weight, they're surprisingly competitive with lithium, and superior in several practical ways. Even in regards to toxicity, post-waste handling is much easier and safer than with Lithiums.

After reading about them I was surprised there haven't been engineering advancements like in Alkaline, NiMH, and Lead Acid technologies.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

trog100 said:


> there is a blind belief in science that things will get fixed when they need to be.. one thing is for sure.. the plant earth will still be here when humans aint.. in the grand scheme of things do humans matter that much.. i dont think so..
> 
> trog



I agree with this, but I am reminded of Elon Musk saying something about how a self-aware species, capable of so much as we are, how uniquely rare that may be in the Cosmos... and to piss it all a way so we can live or drive in fancier boxes than the other people around us...

How many species were like us in the Cosmos? That were so close to achieving and even capable of interstellar travel, but they destroyed their world (or did not sufficiently plan out its resources long term) before they could do so. It's interesting to think about...


----------



## trog100 (Jan 29, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> I agree with this, but I am reminded of Elon Musk saying something about how a self-aware species, capable of so much as we are, how uniquely rare that may be in the Cosmos... and to piss it all a way so we can live or drive in fancier boxes than the other people around us...
> 
> How many species were like us in the Cosmos? That were so close to achieving and even capable of interstellar travel, but they destroyed their world (or did not sufficiently plan out its resources long term) before they could do so. It's interesting to think about...



we are moving more and more towards a virtual reality.. most of the fancy boxes i drive around in are on my computer screen.. most of my interactively with other humans is also on my computer screen.. good or bad i havnt a clue but its happening..

my advice is pretty simple.. enjoy the present dont worry too much about the future there is bugger all you can do about it anyway..

in keeping with the thread topic i am also quite happy with current battery technology.. he he..

trog


----------



## Shrek (Jan 29, 2022)

trog100 said:


> one other factor that isnt mentioned is you cant charge lifepo4 below 0 C it damages the cells .. something quite important with an engine starter battery..



Nice catch

Dakota Lithium 12v 60Ah Dual Purpose 1000CCA Starter Battery Plus Deep Cycle LiFePO4 Performance
"Avoid charging below 32'F."

As you point out, this is a big deal.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 29, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Nice catch
> 
> Dakota Lithium 12v 60Ah Dual Purpose 1000CCA Starter Battery Plus Deep Cycle LiFePO4 Performance
> "Avoid charging below 32'F."
> ...



the best lifepo4 batteries have a built in sensor that wont let them take a charge below 0 C.... its a big deal period in colder countries let alone just in cars.. 

some batteries have built in heater circuits to overcome this problem.. 

trog


----------



## Shrek (Jan 29, 2022)

I am still considering a LiFEPO4 for a UPS unit I have, but I had no idea about the 32°F issue; much appreciated.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

LabRat 891 said:


> Funny you mention that. Recently, in rebuilding some power tool packs I deep dove NiCds. Most of the 'consumer-known' shortcomings have proven scientifically false.
> They're also EXTREMELY recyclable, with the majority of 'new' cells reusing post-use 'waste'.
> I also wasn't aware of how 'tolerant' NiCds were to misuse and abuse either.
> Other than their density/weight, they're surprisingly competitive with lithium, and superior in several practical ways. Even in regards to toxicity, post-waste handling is much easier and safer than with Lithiums.
> ...


So is NiMh, which is honestly one of my faveorite battery techs.  Really recyclable things.  Probably only bested in reusability of parts by lead-acid, honestly, and it has a lot more drawbacks weight wise, and even toxicity wise.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 30, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> one thing that interests me in regards to EV cars is long term sustainability. has anyone (scientist or company) actually sat down and done the math in regards to how much lithium there is (not just lithium but all the natural resources combined for a lithium battery, including the fresh water needed)
> 
> for example, short term greed is only way capitalism has ever worked. what happens if we find out that Lithium mine in Nevada only had 50-70 years of lithium in it? what do we do then? I don't know the answer, I am genuinely asking if anyone even knows how much natural resources are in the world/mineable to make x amount of batteries or y amount of years z amount of population.
> 
> ...


There is a massive lithium shortage already.  The problem with lithium is most of it is sourced from what are effectively deserts and refining of lithium requires an enormous amount of water.  








						Factbox: World faces shortage of lithium for electric vehicle batteries
					

Lithium is in hot demand due to rapidly growing production of electric vehicles that use lithium-ion batteries, but there is a global supply shortage of the metal, with western countries racing to bring on new mines to compete with China.




					www.reuters.com
				











						Factbox: Lithium: Where does it come from?
					

Here are the key ways of mining lithium, a highly reactive material that is used in batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles. Demand is likely to double over the next decade as more electric vehicles arrive on the road.




					www.reuters.com
				











						Serbia's green activists rally to demand moratorium on lithium mining
					

Hundreds of Serbian environmental activists on Thursday blocked Belgrade's city centre, demanding a moratorium on lithium mining and exploration, following authorities' decision to revoke permits for Rio Tinto , and its $2.4 billion lithium project in the Balkan country.




					www.reuters.com
				











						Allkem sees lithium carbonate prices rising 80% in half year to June
					

Australian lithium miner Allkem Ltd said on Tuesday lithium carbonate prices for the second half of the fiscal year 2022 were expected to jump 80% from the first half because of booming demand for the metal used in electric vehicle batteries.




					www.reuters.com
				



...a lot more where that came from.

There seems to be this false preconception that we'll only need x amount of lithium extracted from the planet and then we'll just recycle it over and over and over again.  There were similar thoughts about plastic but turns out the only sensible thing to do with recycled plastics is...burn it:








						The recycling myth: A plastic waste solution littered with failure
					

Big Oil is touting “advanced recycling” as the solution to the world’s waste crisis. But the technology has yet to live up to its backers’ lofty claims, a Reuters review of 30 projects found.




					www.reuters.com
				




Even recycling wind turbine blades has been mostly a failure...








						Surging wind industry faces its own green dilemma: landfills
					

Wind turbines have become a vital source of global green energy but their makers increasingly face an environmental conundrum of their own: how to recycle them.




					www.reuters.com
				




We're completely failing at this whole environmentalism thing.   The economic things too.


There are some companies claiming they can recycle li-ion batteries but, as far as I know, there's no solid data on them actually succeeding.  Just because a company claims they can do it doesn't mean they actually are (see plastic recycling as proof of that).


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 30, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There is a massive lithium shortage already.  The problem with lithium is most of it is sourced from what are effectively deserts and refining of lithium requires an enormous amount of water.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see how plastic recycling has anything to do with battery recycling successes though.  They seem like completely unrelated industries.

Not saying there is a definite answer to Li-Ion recycling because honestly, I don't know.  I just know that saying "it'll fail because plastics did" is...  illogical.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 30, 2022)

trog100 said:


> we are moving more and more towards a virtual reality.. most of the fancy boxes i drive around in are on my computer screen.. most of my interactively with other humans is also on my computer screen.. good or bad i havnt a clue but its happening..
> 
> my advice is pretty simple.. enjoy the present dont worry too much about the future there is bugger all you can do about it anyway..
> 
> ...



Best way. actually interacting with other people is on the whole a shitty experience.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 30, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There is a massive lithium shortage already.  The problem with lithium is most of it is sourced from what are effectively deserts and refining of lithium requires an enormous amount of water.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I already mentioned the water thing a couple times previously in this thread

Seems to be a mistake moving forward with EV imo.  should be bill gates/warren buffet nuclear all over the place, and hydrogen car centers in every city. you drive up like you are at valvoline instant auto, they drop your almost empty hydrogen tank and put in a new one. and nuclear powers all the hydrogen plants. 

either that or hyperloop, seems like the only way forward if you truly care about the future of humanity and the planet. fresh water is already scarce, hell I drink culligan water cause can't trust the city water, it sits at around 450 parts per million sometimes... disgusting...

we are already living in a dystopian semi-failed society imo, just hard to see it cause we have a lot of shiny distracting objects LOL


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 30, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I don't see how plastic recycling has anything to do with battery recycling successes though.  They seem like completely unrelated industries.
> 
> Not saying there is a definite answer to Li-Ion recycling because honestly, I don't know.  I just know that saying "it'll fail because plastics did" is...  illogical.


Pretty much everything that has a lithium battery is surrounded by plastic. 



lynx29 said:


> you drive up like you are at valvoline instant auto, they drop your almost empty hydrogen tank and put in a new one.


The tanks are literally the most expensive part of hydrogen vehicles.  There's no reason to change them unless they leak.  Nikola (and a global consortium) is already working on higher pressure systems to speed up refilling.  The goal is to fill a truck in 5 minutes.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 30, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pretty much everything that has a lithium battery is surrounded by plastic.


Ok.  That still doesn't have anything to do with the actual lithium recycling.

Furthermore, does it have to be surrounded in plastic?  I'm betting not.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2022)

Plastic "recycling" is a cautionary tale that ideas are often not economically viable or technically feasible.  It is an example of why a business saying they can recycle something doesn't mean the problem is actually solved.

It's really quite simple: if you're not recycling close to 100% of your inputs, then there is still a whole lot of waste being generated by the industry, no matter what it is.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 1, 2022)

The recycling myth
Is Plastic Recycling A Lie? Oil Companies Touted Recycling To Sell More Plastic : NPR


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 1, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The recycling myth
> Is Plastic Recycling A Lie? Oil Companies Touted Recycling To Sell More Plastic : NPR



I just read that, holy shit. I know my local news did an investigation one time last year trying to trace the source of recycling, and the company (even though they are paid with our tax payer dollars) would not answer their questions nor let them see inside their facility where the plastic goes. lol... its sad, all of it is. we fucked up as a species in so many ways and in so many areas. 

We really need a truly genuine honest person to lead us to a better future, and that person is not one of the elites or one of the rich. It's exactly as Plato/Socrates predicted, it needs to be a philosopher who takes no income and sleeps on the white house lawn and gives up all material possessions, outside of what is required to be the leader of the free world.


----------



## Operandi (Feb 1, 2022)

Lithium supply in relation to EVs has been researched and there definitely isn't enough to power everything with lithium based batteries past a few decades. Thats why we need to eventually move off of it at some point to different battery chemistry or hydrogen.  Li-ion is the best we got now though for the foreseeable future so its full steam ahead.

That said batteries that no longer cut it for EVs can be used for stationary power banks.  And you can recycle the batteries to get the raw material back, its just not easy and up till this point the drive to do it hasn't been strong enough.  That and it will be a lot easier of a process to streamline the recycling process when you are dealing large scale packs of all the same cell type rather than all the random puny little smartphone, laptop batteries which is what most of the Li-ion batteries consisted of till nowish.



CallandorWoT said:


> I just read that, holy shit. I know my local news did an investigation one time last year trying to trace the source of recycling, and the company (even though they are paid with our tax payer dollars) would not answer their questions nor let them see inside their facility where the plastic goes. lol... its sad, all of it is. we fucked up as a species in so many ways and in so many areas.


Its not really a myth but it was definitely scam to push to onerous of responsibility to do the _"recycling" _onto the consumer rather than the industry actually producing the stuff. The short version of plastic recycling is plastics with "1" and "2" on them are easily recyclable but everything else is pretty up in the air as to what actually happens to it, at least in NA I think.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 2, 2022)

Batteries for EV's can be 1/4 of the cost of the car, sometimes more so they bloody well should be return exchange when they need replacing as i think replacement batteries are a few grand at least.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 2, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> What boggles my mind even more than Li-ion technology being behind the requirements of our age is that governments are still pushing it to take over internal combustion engines. I mean, only electric cars in the UK from 2030? I can't see that happen on Li-ion. Sorry, green-minded people, but I really can't. I live in an apartment with no infrastructure to charge a car at home, and I don't have hours to waste at a station. Politicians of our times seem to have no connection to reality at all.


It's all about control and making the working class poor, so there is only scumbag politicians and "elites" and poor people.

Ever watch Demolition Man, that along side Terminator and Wall E are warnings.



Tigger said:


> Batteries for EV's can be 1/4 of the cost of the car, sometimes more so they bloody well should be return exchange when they need replacing as i think replacement batteries are a few grand at least.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 2, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> We really need a truly genuine honest person to lead us to a better future, and that person is not one of the elites or one of the rich. It's exactly as Plato/Socrates predicted, it needs to be a philosopher who takes no income and sleeps on the white house lawn and gives up all material possessions, outside of what is required to be the leader of the free world.



Asimov wrote some nice stories and one proposed that the leader would be selected on worth and was obligated for the term, but in return would have a lifetime income. He did like to play with ideas did Asimov.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Lithium supply in relation to EVs has been researched and there definitely isn't enough to power everything with lithium based batteries past a few decades. Thats why we need to eventually move off of it at some point to different battery chemistry or hydrogen.  Li-ion is the best we got now though for the foreseeable future so its full steam ahead.


Lithium is a very abundant resource on Earth but it is never pure: it is bound up with other minerals which makes extraction costly/difficult.  This is where economics is already at play with oil: when the easy to pump wells start running dry, the price goes up, which makes fracking and tar sands viable as a substitute.  Costs more to produce and is less pure, but they also stop the price from rising higher because there's a supply available to meet demand.  Lithium is likely to go through the same evolution where the (relatively) easy stuff is tapped first and more costly sources come as the price rises.

Keep in mind also, that there literally is no room in terms of pricing battery electric vehicles (BEV) with governments everywhere subsidizing part of the roll away cost.  Subsidies are a clear signal that the economics of the market do not work (the actual retail price is higher than the vast majority of consumers want to pay). A lithium shortage therefore either stalls BEV growth or increases government subsidies to compensate or the market will not continue to grow under its own market forces.  Knowing this, it's worrying to me how the governments of the world are pushing to go entirely BEV exclusive on _very_ short timetables (one country I think has a deadline of 2030 to stop selling ICEs).  As with fuel efficiency standards, they were supportive when they agreed and they pushed back when they didn't.  So far, only Toyota is pushing back and I think that is because Toyota is the only one making BEVs for the everyman and they see the growing lithium costs as pricing them out of the market.  Everyone else is selling BEVs at a premium/luxury model so they're not worried about lithium...yet.

Of course a revolution in battery tech could blunt the impending lithium crunch but, I'm not going to hold my breath.  For the sake of the planet, I hope BEVs exceed the cost of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEV) so the market will hasten the transition off batteries and on to hydrogen-as-a-battery.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 2, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Of course a revolution in battery tech could blunt the impending lithium crunch but, I'm not going to hold my breath.  For the sake of the planet, I hope BEVs exceed the cost of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEV) so the market will hasten the transition off batteries and on to hydrogen-as-a-battery.



Is this more of a 'dream' type hope? Or do you actually foresee it taking place with some innovations that are incoming?

I don't see EV going anywhere, EV seems to be roaring ahead full speed, sadly. I agree with you. Personally I think all of the south west of the USA needs solar powered cars, and due to ocean rises, we are going to need to move 70% of the worlds population more inland at some point anyway, so we can build all new urban cities based on hyperloop system, and then hydrogen fuel cell combined with bill gates/warren buffet new nuclear power plant models to give the hydrogen plants and that supply chain the industry it needs. Hydrogen semi trucks seem to make a lot more sense over battery ones too...

Humanity does have a chance to turn itself around here... EV doesn't seem to be the right way though, a shame.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2022)

The innovations are generally already here (see Toyota Mirai) but there isn't the infrastructure necessary to support HFCEVs outside of locations where there are hydrogen fuel stations.  HFCEVs suffer the same problem as BEVs (range anxiety) but it's even worse because you can't charge an HFCEV off any old 110v outlet like you could a BEV.

HFCEVs could actually solve some of the southwest's water crisis if there was a standard for storing waste HFC water and dumping it into water recovery systems.  Trucks filling up in Kansas, for example, could contribute a few gallons of water to Arizona, for example.  As long as Arizona brings in their own supply of hydrogen to dispense (rather than producing it locally), HFCs could become a net positive for water flows into the state.


----------



## Operandi (Feb 2, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Knowing this, it's worrying to me how the governments of the world are pushing to go entirely BEV exclusive on _very_ short timetables (one country I think has a deadline of 2030 to stop selling ICEs). As with fuel efficiency standards, they were supportive when they agreed and they pushed back when they didn't. So far, only Toyota is pushing back and I think that is because Toyota is the only one making BEVs for the everyman and they see the growing lithium costs as pricing them out of the market. Everyone else is selling BEVs at a premium/luxury model so they're not worried about lithium...yet.


They are pushing incentives because no nation wants to fall behind the technology and infrastructure curve.  Li-ion battery technology now is what is but what is but what learned today on current Li-ion tech paves the way for better future technologies.  

As to current EVs and Toyota, they are pretty much MIA, Kia / Hyundai, Ford, VW, and the incoming Chinese manufactures are the ones leading the way to affordable EVs.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Of course a revolution in battery tech could blunt the impending lithium crunch but, I'm not going to hold my breath. For the sake of the planet, I hope BEVs exceed the cost of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEV) so the market will hasten the transition off batteries and on to hydrogen-as-a-battery.


Ultimately I think this will probably end being the case but it will take a lot of abundant green energy as making the hydrogen is very energy intensive so doing it with the current sources of power is pretty much pointless so there is no reason to make meaningful plans to switch now.


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 2, 2022)

eidairaman1 said:


> It's all about control and making the working class poor, so there is only scumbag politicians and "elites" and poor people.
> 
> Ever watch Demolition Man, that along side Terminator and Wall E are warnings.


Totally! More often than not, I feel like John Spartan, offending everyone by just opening my mouth and not hiding that I want to live my life the way I imagined it, and not some dickhead politician or random rich bloke on TV.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 2, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Plastic "recycling" is a cautionary tale that ideas are often not economically viable or technically feasible.  It is an example of why a business saying they can recycle something doesn't mean the problem is actually solved.
> 
> It's really quite simple: if you're not recycling close to 100% of your inputs, then there is still a whole lot of waste being generated by the industry, no matter what it is.


Ok, I can appreciate it as a cautionary tale for sure.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Feb 9, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Plastic "recycling" is a cautionary tale that ideas are often not economically viable or technically feasible.  It is an example of why a business saying they can recycle something doesn't mean the problem is actually solved.
> 
> It's really quite simple: if you're not recycling close to 100% of your inputs, then there is still a whole lot of waste being generated by the industry, no matter what it is.



It should be noted that different plastic resins have different degrees of success.

PETE (#1 plastic) is very successful, as is #5 plastic.

#6 plastic is so awful you might as well throw it into the trash most of the time. #4 plastic (aka: plastic bags) is theoretically recyclable to a high-degree, but the economics of plastic-bag recycling is awful. #4 plastic is surprisingly difficult (recycling is paid per-pound. You need _LOTS_ of plastic bags before you get enough "weight", and all of those bags need to be high-purity #4 plastic. Just a little bit of other kinds of plastic ruins the whole batch).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2022)

The problem is the costs associated with sorting and cleaning.  As the Reuters article said, the solution that makes the most economic sense is to simply burn it all to produce cement.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 9, 2022)

I've said it in other threads but it seems to have returned here. Don't use a lithium battery on a lead acid type Ups just because people have doesn't make it a good idea.
Lead acid battery voltages can be very different to lithium to start but it's more how they charge is the issue. UPS's especially economy ones generally charge via a pwm circuit while this is fine for most battery chemistry it is not for lithium types, it stresses the battery, killing it slowly. If your Ups runs off led acid and you want longer run time add more don't swap to lithium because some IT technician (who won't read a manual because he knows better) told you it's fine.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 9, 2022)

ThaiTaffy said:


> I've said it in other threads but it seems to have returned here. Don't use a lithium battery on a lead acid type Ups just because people have doesn't make it a good idea.
> Lead acid battery voltages can be very different to lithium to start but it's more how they charge is the issue. UPS's especially economy ones generally charge via a pwm circuit while this is fine for most battery chemistry it is not for lithium types, it stresses the battery, killing it slowly. If your Ups runs off led acid and you want longer run time add more don't swap to lithium because some IT technician (who won't read a manual because he knows better) told you it's fine.



so how do you think lithium should be charged.. ??

trog


----------



## Wirko (Feb 9, 2022)

trog100 said:


> so how do you think lithium should be charged.. ??
> 
> trog


Smoothed current instead of pulsating current. It's still generated by a PWM circuit, just better filtered.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 9, 2022)

Wirko said:


> Smoothed current instead of pulsating current. It's still generated by a PWM circuit, just better filtered.



that begs the next question.. how smooth is smooth.. i cant say as i have seen much of a mention of such things.. ??

trog


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 9, 2022)

trog100 said:


> so how do you think lithium should be charged.. ??
> 
> trog


Power point tracking is how most decent lithium chargers work you could technically charge a lithium battery via pwm if you had some sort of smoothing led acid battery after the charge circuit a few diodes and a dc-dc mppt charging circuit only allowing input to the battery from said bodge and the output was protected via diodes.


----------



## Wirko (Feb 9, 2022)

trog100 said:


> that begs the next question.. how smooth is smooth.. i cant say as i have seen much of a mention of such things.. ??
> 
> trog


I don't know any specifics, so guessing only. Some filtering, not perfect filtering like is necessary in pwm power stages for CPUs. 
With pulsating current, the effective (RMS) current (the one that heats up all the parts of battery that act as resistors) is higher than the average current (the one that charges the battery). For example, 5A all of the time will heat up a resistor half as much as 10A half of the time. Now a battery isn't a simple resistor, heating is an electrochemical effect, but *maybe* it is similar.



ThaiTaffy said:


> Power point tracking is how most decent lithium chargers work you could technically charge a lithium battery via pwm if you had some sort of smoothing led acid battery after the charge circuit a few diodes and a dc-dc mppt charging circuit only allowing input to the battery from said bodge and the output was protected via diodes.


MPPT is usually associated with solar panels, what does it do in the context of battery charging? 

However, lead-acid chargers are constant voltage, and the voltage is tuned to the battery type, so it can't be optimal for another type.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 9, 2022)

lithium charging (and discharging) is handled by a built in battery management system.. charging isnt as critical as with lead acid.. 

trog


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 9, 2022)

Wirko said:


> I don't know any specifics, so guessing only. Some filtering, not perfect filtering like is necessary in pwm power stages for CPUs.
> With pulsating current, the effective (RMS) current (the one that heats up all the parts of battery that act as resistors) is higher than the average current (the one that charges the battery). For example, 5A all of the time will heat up a resistor half as much as 10A half of the time. Now a battery isn't a simple resistor, heating is an electrochemical effect, but *maybe* it is similar.
> 
> 
> ...


Ppt or mppt is used in solar charge controllers but wasn't developed for it. It's simply a type of power transmission and works well if charging a lithium battery from another type say lead acid. As the name suggests it tracks the stages of a charge and supplies the power as and when needed. as you pointed out lithium batteries charge in stages and the voltage used depends on that stage . 

Charging a life or lipo battery with a constant voltage especially in pulses stresses the battery chemistry and lithium batteries have a fragile balance hence why they work so well at 50% (most lithium batteries are shipped at 50% charge for this reason).
Lead acid on the other hand doesn't care what you do to it really, short it out, draw massive amounts of amps it doesn't care and will keep on chugging along.

A decent lithium balance charger measures the voltage of the battery from start to finish and alters voltage and amperes depending on each stage ( power point tracking) bringing the voltage up steadily till full be it 3.65v for a Life or 4.2v for a lipo.



trog100 said:


> lithium charging (and discharging) is handled by a built in battery management system.. charging isnt as critical as with lead acid..
> 
> trog


No it doesn't a BMS purely adds safety features so the battery doesn't damage itself or explode and doesn't regulate anything

Sorry I'm partly wrong a BMS can balance a battery but doesn't regulate voltage.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 9, 2022)

i would say that with lithium the voltage dosnt need to be regulated.. voltage (within reason) just gets chucked at it until the BMS decides its cooked at that point it switches off.. 

it also dosnt care whether its fully charged or not.. the BMS does govern the maximum charge and discharge.. with the lifep04 batteries i have this is around 1C.. 

with the 800 ah bank i have this would be 800 amps max discharge or 800 amp max charge.. not as i have found anything coming even vaguely close to being able to do this.. my batteries are charged by 20 x 150 watt solar panels and run into a 3000 watt inverter which partly powers my house.. 

i have an auto switch over device which is controlled by the battery voltage.. when the battery charge level (voltage) gets down to about 40% it switches from battery power to mains power.. when the battery voltage gets high enough it switches back to battery power..

the battery bank with no solar would provide basic power to my house for several days.. the system could also be generator powered if needed..

trog


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 9, 2022)

trog100 said:


> i would say that with lithium the voltage dosnt need to be regulated.. voltage (within reason) just gets chucked at it until the BMS decides its cooked at that point it switches off..
> 
> it also dosnt care whether its fully charged or not.. the BMS does govern the maximum charge and discharge.. with the lifep04 batteries i have this is around 1C..
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you have a charge controller regulating volatge to your 12/24v batteries otherwise your throwing 60-140 amps at those life batteries and your BMS's would just cut out

Your standard charge current would more likely be around 0.33c so you could charge it without lowering the amperage from the cells but I still can't believe your inputting 21v into a 14.6v cell

It's more likely you have a integrated charging circuit built into your BMS regulating voltage correctly which is something very few BMS on the market have.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 9, 2022)

ThaiTaffy said:


> I'm guessing you have a charge controller regulating volatge to your 12/24v batteries otherwise your throwing 60-140 amps at those life batteries and your BMS's would just cut out
> 
> Your standard charge current would more likely be around 0.33c so you could charge it without lowering the amperage from the cells but I still can't believe your inputting 21v into a 14.6v cell
> 
> It's more likely you have a integrated charging circuit built into your BMS regulating voltage correctly which is something very few BMS on the market have.



i have 8 x 100 ah batteries in parallel.. 1C would be 800 amps.. i live in the UK.. i installed the system at the end of last summer/autumn .. as of yet i have not seen real sun just low winter sun..

the most i have seen my panels producing is 90 amps or about 1250 watts.. the panels are set up in three arrays ruining into three separate controllers.. purely a guess this because i really dont know but even in the summer i dont see more than maybe 1800 watts (in total) coming in from the panels.. but this really is a guess..

if i do get more i will have to think about some bigger controllers.. currently i have 2 x 40 amp and 1 x 60 amp controllers..

trog


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 9, 2022)

trog100 said:


> i have 8 x 100 ah batteries in parallel.. 1C would be 800 amps.. i live in the UK.. i installed the system at the end of last summer/autumn .. as of yet i have not seen real sun just low winter sun..
> 
> the most i have seen my panels producing is 90 amps or about 1250 watts.. the panels are set up in three arrays ruining into three separate controllers.. purely a guess this because i really dont know but even in the summer i dont see more than maybe 1800 watts (in total) coming in from the panels.. but this really is a guess..
> 
> ...


What voltage are your batteries running at? 48v? No way your able to get 8 days off 9.6kwh.
 I use Daly BMS's and epever solar charge controllers as they integrate into home assistant and I can track and record everything.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 9, 2022)

ThaiTaffy said:


> What voltage are your batteries running at? 48v? No way your able to get 8 days off 9.6kwh.
> I use Daly BMS's and epever solar charge controllers as they integrate into home assistant and I can track and record everything.



did i say 8 days.. i dont think so.. i dont connect directly to house mains.. i have run a separate minimal circuit into the house just for basic needs.. the panels are on my garden sheds roofs..

what are basic needs.. you tell me.. he he.. at the moment the system provides solar power when its there and mains power when it isnt.. in the winter its pretty useless in the summer maybe not so useless..

i have a similar but smaller system on my RV trailer.. 

trog


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 10, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Do the amps produced by other types of batteries compare with lead acid? I know you can get Lion battery's for a motorcycle, but don't know about a car?
> 
> The great thing about lead acid type is they are highly recycled because of the lead in them, but are other types recyclable or just disposed of?



So...not a great premise.  

I've got a complex answer for you...but if you want to tune out then the answer is that's not how that works.  


The long bit.  I'm assuming that you've got a background in automotive of some sort.  The terminology there is a bit different, but I'll provide a brief overview.
Cold Cranking Amps - The amount of energy that can be pulled from a storage device functionally instantly without damaging it
Energy Capacity - The total potential energy stored in the battery
Voltage - The difference in electronegativity between charged and ground state

Your voltage is determined by your chemistry.  Basically, what you're doing is storing potential energy as chemical energy.  In a lead-acid battery that's generally lead plates, stored in a solution of sulphuric acid.  Consider the potential stored as Pb+ ions, H+ ions, and SO4- ions.  This is that pesky high school chemistry stuff, where you looked up the electronegativity of stuff in huge tables.  What you'll discover is that the reaction generates about 12 volts one way (with multiple chemical cells linked in series), and requires about 14 volts the other way to return to a charged state.  This is why our charging voltages (in a car) are about 14 off of the alternator, but you've got 12 volts to actually use coming from the battery.

Energy capacity is a function of internal volumes and reactive surfaces.  That's obtuse, so it may be easier to think of this as how much electrolyte you've got in the battery, which is really what is storing the charge.  The catch on this is that there are practical limitations...hence why you cannot just make a lead acid battery with nearly pure sulfuric acid and boost capacity.  Primarily, the electrolyte solution is also acting as a huge heat capacitor.  Generally this means that your construction technique, and battery size, are what will influence energy capacity.

Now, the cold cranking amps.  Unfortunately, this is going to be chemistry and reactive surfaces.  Let's talk about why your car uses lead-acid.  If you've got a big plate of lead, beaten out into a fine surface, there's a huge surface area inside the battery.  One the flip side, the lead plate is a pain to deal with and requires additional construction techniques so as to not decompose when chemical reaction sites are inconsistent.
Less nerd speak, more practical speak.  There's such a thing as a high cold cranking amp battery and a deep cycle battery.  Why?  One has thin plates, can convert a bunch of energy quickly due to having such a huge chemically reactive surface, but doesn't have an insane overall storage.  The other has a much higher storage quantity, but cannot allow a huge draw because more of its internal space is dedicated to the energy storage medium.  Lead-acid is great because both of these are possible, and a pain because given the chemistry they can't exactly store nutty amounts of power.  Easy come-easy go.



Now, why not install lithium polymer batteries on cars?  There are three reasons, so I'll summarize:
1) Cost.  The cost of a lead acid battery is pennies when compared to a lithium polymer one.  Old tech ain't bad.
2) Energy delivery.  Lead-acid relies on huge electrode plates, meaning they can deliver their load faster without decomposing their internal chemistry.  Lead-acid does off-gas hydrogen and volatile stuff just like li-ion and li-po.  That said, when was the last time you saw a lead-acid battery pop?  Only one in my lifetime, after being cranked to the moon for weeks and being underspeced.  
3) Recharging.  So, anyone that has any automotive background has had a trickle charger.  Old cars were dumb, and people left lights on.  Trickle charge the battery, take a half hour drive, and everything is right as rain.  Why?  Well, the engine sustains itself while running off of the charge from the alternator.  The alternator is constantly charging the battery.  They tolerate that well.  li-po and li-ion don't...which is why they have specific charging circuits that deactivate once they detect the battery is full.


Now, the fringe benefits:
1) Lead-acid is stupid easy to recycle.  There's a reason your get a core charge for them.  Empty acid, wash, smelt old plates into new ones, reinstall acid, and you've got a "new" battery with about 2 new components.  That is the plastic container and the terminals.  
2) High tolerance for high temperatures.  So...li-po and li-ion don't like freezing.  They don't like temperatures near boiling.  They don't like to sit next to stuff that goes from freezing to near boiling during regular operations.  Lead acid basically tanks all of this.
3) Huge electrodes are cheap.  We're looking at surface areas for chemical reactions to occur on.  In a li-ion and li-po battery these are basically the electrodes jammed into them.  Not a lot of surface area, so they generally have much smaller instantaneous power delivery.  That's fine if you don't want your phone to explode in your pocket.  It's not so fine when you have to charge a motor that compresses gas to 10-12:1 ratios before delivering a high potential spark to ignite the mixture and start combustion.  
4) The infrastructure.  I...will give this to Tesla.  They have made li-ion batteries easier to source for themselves.  It hasn't done great things for consumers...but it was a good direction.  Now let's look at lead acid.  Cores come in, and require minimal labor and parts to replace.  New batteries are made through smelting of a relatively low temperature lead, and usage of sulfuric acid.  Sulfuric acid is an industrial by-product used in plenty of places.  This means that getting lead acid batteries is an order of magnitude easier...and ironically more environmentally friendly.
5) Yes, I said environmentally friendly.  That's despite the massive fume hoods and other requirements to smelt lead.  Funny that.  Lithium extraction requires removal or ore, processing with acids to remove the unwanted slag, chemical reconstitution of the Lithium into a usable form, and fabrication of a cell.  Recycling is a joke...because those cells yield compounds that volatilize in an oxygen environment and have potentially off-gassed much of their relatively costly bits due to the love of fast charging and overcharging.  In short, they often don't see recycling because the environment and qualifications to recycle them basically price them out of being economical.  This is despite just railing on about how expensive they are to make.  Go figure.



So...it is possible to design a li-ion or li-po battery to replace a lead acid one.  It'll have a shorter life.  It'll have a larger number of cells, so that enough amperage can safely be pulled at once.  Because of all of those cells, it'll probably be heavier than the lead acid alternative.  It will require much greater temperature controls to prevent decay during usage.  It'll require a complex charging circuit, and will be far more prone to failure if cranked multiple times in a row (given how the charging circuit will have to work).
In short, it can be done.  It is not because for every good things there are three bad things.  Ironically, old school tech is infinitely more suited to things than newer stuff.




-I laugh at this as I review.  Right now, inside your car, is likely an air filter.  It probably has an expanded metal mesh, embedded in an isomer, with a paper filter.  The isomer is a 10+ year old formulation.  The metal mesh is created on machines from the 1920's.  The paper filter is largely indistinguishable from those found in the 1950's.  It's amazing how much "archaic" stuff exists.  It's also amazing that despite having all this time to design new stuff, often times the old ways are still economically the best.  
I'd say there's irony in being on a tech forum stating that new tech is not a solution.  That said, I recognize that newer is often confused with better.  I then crack open a cheap UPS and discover a series of lead acid batteries...and find it amusing that what we trust is different than what we think.  Food for thought.-


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 10, 2022)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> So...not a great premise.
> 
> I've got a complex answer for you...but if you want to tune out then the answer is that's not how that works.
> 
> ...


Pretty much every battery has a place still within our electronics don't see many people commenting about the alkaline battery they use daily in their remotes. Environment and density dictate what we use.
Here in Thailand lithium car batteries are more available probably because there no chance of a freeze here and no one understands the charging process.

I looked at a domestic pumped hydro battery but the sheer volume of water I would need to store was insane but that didn't make it a bad idea just personally I didn't like the idea of gigantic galvanized water tanks on my picturesque Thai farm. 

I guess the saying "if it's not broke, don't fix it" applies to batteries. All chemistry types get fine tuned so saying a lead acid is ancient tech can be a false assumption it's a chemistry that works perfect for certain uses so why reinvent the wheel and don't knock them as we might need poor old lead acid for our solar homes and UPS's in the future when we have no lithium and no alternative.

Hopefully we get rid of batteries all together and all have clean free energy in the future.








						Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
					

A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.



					www.bbc.com


----------

