Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

otvortex OP t1_j4mlrf7 wrote

Traditional battery technology such as lithium-ion is susceptible to breakage of nanowires in the batteries through repeated charging and discharging.

>The UCI researchers have solved this problem by coating a gold nanowire in a manganese dioxide shell and wrapping the assembly in an electrolyte made of a Plexiglas-like gel. The combination is reliable and resistant to failure. With the technique Mya Le Thai has invented, the team developed a prototype that endured nearly 200,000 recharge cycles over the course of three months.

If this technology can be scaled to modern battery capacities, power ratings, and form factors, this could revolutionize how sustainable going to electric can truly be. Do you think this is a discovery that can scale to the market?

80

Allomera t1_j4mtka0 wrote

Wouldn't it need to scale up much, much further than modern battery capacities? Modern battery capacity and life expectancy seems to be a major bottleneck in the energy transition, as I understand it. Generating power from sustainable sources is relatively easy, storing large quantities and transporting it far from the source is really difficult. Home batteries are prohibitively expensive at very low capacities and slow charging rate. Even the cheapest large scale energy storage method, pumped storage hydropower, is being implemented at a depressingly slow pace.

Not to mention the difficulty in gathering the amounts of gold and building the large scale factories required, that's going to impact the environment negatively just like lithium mining and battery manufacturing does.

If this can be scaled up to high density, modular and relatively mobile multi-GWh applications it will be absolutely revolutionary. That's a huge if though...

24

Cindexxx t1_j4p9335 wrote

Not really, no. If this even gets close to current tech and make batteries as invincible as they say, you could have lifetime batteries. Take a power wall. Even with minimal usage it needs to be replaced 20-25 years down the line. Same for bigger storage, like for large renewable energy storage. Sure you can make a 50 story building full of batteries if you want, but 25 years later you have to do it again.

But what if they ran 10,000 years? All of the sudden it's a lot more interesting for long term investment. Especially if it's a company that rents it out. Current lithium ion batteries have like 2,000 full charge cycles if you're nice to it. This says 200,000. That's 100x more, which would actually be more like 200,000 years. I just said 10k because 200k sounds ludicrous.

Plus, it would be practically permanent for homes. Imagine new builds just have a power wall just built in with a week of power storage that never gets weaker. Amazing.

Throw in the dropping cost of solar panels, along with the fact they actually keep working well past the recommended, 25 year replacement window, and we could have neighborhoods of houses that are self sufficient, or even feeding the grid. Hell, they could feed other people's invincible batteries that haven't bought the panels yet, or retrofitted the power wall.

On top of all that, electric cars! Those engines chug past 500k easy all the time. But when the batteries need replacing the cost can be pretty extreme. It's why the older plug in hybrids aren't as attractive as older gas cars. If you had a frame that had permanent batteries, you could basically rebuild the whole car over and over until it rusted out or something. Electric cars are (or at least, can be) a lot easier to fix and rebuild too.

No fuel pump, worrying about fuel/air mixture, timing, spark plugs, changing oil, etc. Basically a charge controller, battery, engine. Maybe a transmission lol. But then, I don't know if these would handle the movement well enough. The article doesn't make it sound like an issue, but idk.

For phones and laptops and whatever, they could even make batteries that go between devices. If nothing else they'd at least be worth recycling. We just throw away lithium because collecting a billion phones and extracting out the lithium isn't economically worth it.

But if you can just pull a battery out and it works like brand new, you're good to go. Standardize like a car battery and almost any "recycled" battery could just be stacked within the standard size for bulk storage or whatever. Easier than designing new devices around batteries and way easier to assemble. Really as long as the storage and voltage is the same the exact size doesn't matter as much.

Although I'm sure there's still some risk carrying all that power, it sounds like there's no volatile chemicals to burst into flame like lithium. Might zap tf out of things and start them on fire though... I bet "in town" cars like china's little EVs would take off like crazy too. Nicer cars could practically become family heirlooms. You can upgrade with new motors or controllers or whatever. Sure we'll improve on them over time, but if you can push 300 mile range it's practical for nearly everyone as a daily driver for a long time into the future.

As far as gold use, I thought that too. But if they're coating it anyways, I'm pretty sure they could use silver.

Googled it, they totally could.

>Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of all metals. In fact, silver defines conductivity - all other metals are compared against it. On a scale of 0 to 100, silver ranks 100, with copper at 97 and gold at 76.

From another source: https://www.mysmartprice.com/gear/graphene-gold-nanowire-future-battery-tech-looks-promising/

>And since nanowires are smaller than the tip of your hair, you can achieve a large surface area by bundling them together. As a result, gold nanowire batteries offer higher storage capacity.

This is a little rabbit hole for me now. Seems like they can actually integrate this into existing batteries.

>This noble idea of improving the battery tech involves a noble metal. Researchers at the University of California have developed a process involving gold nanowires that can increase the longevity of batteries by hundreds of times.

Emphasis mine. Saw a few references elsewhere, but not much in depth. Seems like they can use nano wires with existing tech. Not the end goal though.

I guess they're thinking nickel as a next try.

>For mass production, researchers are hopeful to replace gold with nickel to keep the manufacturing costs in check.

On top of that, Intel is collaborating on a copper foam 3D battery. Instead of a flat sheet (like smartphones) or a flat sheet rolled around (cylindrical batteries) it's almost a spray in foam. They could basically build a frame and spray foam the battery into it. Then there's this!

Lithium:

>Energy Density 185 to 220 Wh/L and Power Density 245 to 430 W/Kg

Copper foam:

>...expected to have power densities reaching 14,000 W/L while maintaining energy densities of 650 Wh/L.

Copper foam is mostly air (crazy!) so W/kg is hardly worth checking. But I found this neat quote

>One of her battery prototypes, for example, doesn’t store energy at 100% of its theoretical capacity, but it’s safer than conventional models—it can be heated or shorted without igniting.

The theoretical capacity is already so high it hardly matters. Apparently it could start getting produced already if they wanted to.

>A big lesson that Prieto is now learning about industry is when to say something is ready for market. “As an academic scientist, you always know you can make your process or compounds or devices better,” she says. In industry, “when you see that what you have can actually meet a need in a particular market, then you have to say, ‘Good enough.’ ”

They're still working on tooling and optimizing production, but it's basically copper foam with an electrolyte layer for conductivity. I saw 100,000 charge cycles with no issue, but I lost the page now.

Tl;dr: Gold is unlikely to be used in commercial products. Probably nickel or an alloy. But capacity and charge/discharge are already great. It could also be used to improve existing batteries without having to completely switch. It would massively increase lifespan. Other battery tech is also very promising, and finally becoming realistic.

14

Allomera t1_j4s25mt wrote

Love this in depth reply! Thank you, I'm going to read it attentively

2

Guilty_Maintenance42 t1_j4qazfd wrote

And unfortunately the best of these advancements will likely never reach consumers because things that work too well or last too long are not profitable.

1

drmojo90210 t1_j4rj9z1 wrote

Even if this tech only doubled or tripled the useful life of a battery (to 40-70 years), that alone would be a cost game-changer for so many applications.

1

EXSPFXDOG t1_j5f5qdz wrote

Great post and very informative! I think that states like Texas will need longer range batteries! People who live in some parts of Texas will drive hours just to go to the grocery store!

We all know Texas is big right. It is really brought home when you drive out there! I drove out there for a job I was working on and you think you are maybe a few hours away after you hit the eastern border but you are days away! Now this was before gps was invented but Texas is frigging huge!

More dually Crew Cab Trucks are sold there than anywhere else because of need to have plenty of room to put all the groceries and other needs when they go to town!

They will need longer range batteries and bigger motors to haul the whole famdamnly and weeks or months worse of groceries! Which is possible now that battery Tractor Trailers are out!

But for once I am getting excited about electric vehicles! I was always saying that they will never be popular until battery technology got better! That time is coming now! And nobody wants to have to drop 25,000 for new batteries! That is why so many early adopters of battery cars sell them early!

1

alclarkey t1_j4o1ai5 wrote

> Even the cheapest large scale energy storage method, pumped storage hydropower, is being implemented at a depressingly slow pace.

Well, yeah, because it takes A LOT of real estate do so. Falling water doesn't generate as much energy as you might think.

11

Thatblokeoffthetelly t1_j4qrr5i wrote

Keep seeing this and wind touted as next gen solutions when under sea currents are 24/7 and produce far more power. Why aren’t ppl rushing to build more undersea power gens?

2

alclarkey t1_j4riujw wrote

Because the water is filled with salt, and any generator you use is going to necessarily need to have some metal components. They'll be destroyed by rust in days.

1

Allomera t1_j4ryjpl wrote

That's very true, but it's possible and doesn't have to be expensive. Especially in mountainous areas with rivers which already utilize hydropower or coastal areas with existing dykes.

Plans for PSH reservoirs spanning a few dozen square km with pump turbines that work both ways (pump water out, generate electricity when water flows in) are ready to be executed. The expertise required lies with the engineering companies that built the Delta Works in the Netherlands, the Thames Barrier, the Dubai Palm Islands, Bath County Pumped Storage Station etc.

I think the issue is the huge up front investment these projects require, despite PSH being the cheapest storage method at very high scale and capacity. There's just not much profit to be made in that market outside of China it seems

1

alclarkey t1_j4s38f5 wrote

Figure out how to make it profitable, and it'll happen over night.

2