Why is battery technology so behind the times?

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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]

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

Aussie advance in quantum battery reality

 

[qubit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

It's also very dangerous. No thank you.

 

[oobymach]

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]

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

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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]

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]

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]

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

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bug]

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]

laser doesn't travel slower than a bullet

That's why the stormtroopers always miss...

 

[lexluthermiester]

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]

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]

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.

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

Custom LiFePO4/LiFeMnPO4 Rechargeable Cells, Packs, PCM

www.batteryspace.com