Comments
giggidy88 t1_is2guc7 wrote
There is the bit that will make this infeasible “innovative new material”.
boonepii t1_is2jvop wrote
Battery tech is evolving fast. That’s no joke. There are many many billions being invested into new battery projects, and not all the companies doing it are following the same theories.
The issue is a battery factory takes 4-5 years to spin up. You need years worth of research and negotiation with many companies before you can build a building. Once you chose the vendor of equipment you have to build the building to their desired specs. These buildings are massive and complex. Lots of fire safety integrations and stuff like that.
So, your cutting edge battery factory is 2-5 years out of date when you open the doors.
dontpet t1_is2ksl1 wrote
I wonder what kind of discounts they use in planning a business case for a battery factory, given the tech and cost is changing so fast.
So many possibly outcomes. I imagine with that kind of risk they price in a lot of fat. Or push some of that risk to those buying the final product.
CoJack-ish t1_is37eg2 wrote
Depending on location, supply can be super volatile too. For instance if you source most of your lithium from China, and relations strain, things can get shaky on the market level real fast.
SatanLifeProTips t1_is3u6gf wrote
Validation for an automotive cell also takes about 5 years unless it is a mild chemistry tweak of a known good design.
boonepii t1_is44s2u wrote
Yup, R&D centers are easier to spin up with small production lines. But that won’t cut it for manufacturing in volume. So in year 2-3 of validation is when the buildings to scale manufacturing break ground so hopefully they will be fully productive at the perfect time.
That’s a serious gant chart. Lol
moosemasher t1_is48nnz wrote
Aviation going to take a whole lot longer than that too
SatanLifeProTips t1_is5kwqx wrote
Yes it will.
A buddy is a Helicopter pilot and told me they replaced his twin batteries with a single battery from Tesla funny enough. The tech transfer is finally happening.
ebkalderon t1_is2j786 wrote
This press release of NASA actually describes what those materials are (selenium-sulfur battery):
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-seeks-to-create-a-better-battery-with-sabers
johngeste t1_is3p59d wrote
NASA is using dilithium in batteries now?
NacreousFink t1_is3ueeh wrote
Beryllium spheres are still too difficult to work with.
WhooshThereHeGoes t1_is533t1 wrote
Have you met the minors? Sheesh! Talk about dog-eat-dog.
pinkfootthegoose t1_is5flu5 wrote
it's irrelevant how fast a battery can be discharged. If you want to increase the power you just put multiple batteries in series. You can adjust by grouping them in series groups to increase voltage and parallel larger groups to increase the amperage.
THExPILLOx t1_is5r9al wrote
Well hot damn, billions in research and decades of human endeavor was just made moot by pinkfootthegoose suggesting daisy chaining. None of them there scientists ever considered that.
eldenrim t1_issjr70 wrote
I'm not the guy you responded to, I'm just curious. Why is daisy chaining not the solution?
THExPILLOx t1_isu5mc1 wrote
How many double a batteries do you think it would take to power an airplane?
Wouldn't it be better to use less of a more powerful battery?
eldenrim t1_isyyxjr wrote
I wouldn't know how many, but I'd assume you can fit quite a lot in a plane surely?
Yes, that battery would obviously be better, but it doesn't exist yet, hence the problem with relying on renewables. I'm asking why daisy chaining isn't a valid solution, not why it's not optimal compared to all other possible batteries.
THExPILLOx t1_isz940f wrote
More weight = less fly.
slavetomypassions92 t1_is2jssk wrote
I fully embrace this electric future we’re moving towards and electric aircraft would be a huge step considering how many people have to travel by air.
Duckbilling t1_is3ljc8 wrote
Hey! The only positive comment in the thread.
isn't it great how much R&D is going on? So, soo cool.
Anyway, thank you.
froginbog t1_is42xyd wrote
Love seeing comments like yours. Keep up the good attitude ✌️
Duckbilling t1_is5vs7y wrote
Just a guess, the people poo pooing advancements in R&D are not the ones doing the science 😎
Brachamul t1_is2yslt wrote
We could also build more damn trains.
deck_hand t1_is57la5 wrote
More passenger trains would be excellent. We really need rail lines that we don't have to share with freight, and freight having the priority... Nearly all of the problems with Amtrak are due to freight companies controlling the tracks.
Brachamul t1_is5e6yi wrote
I'm not in the US but in France where the rail infrastructure is quite good. And still, we need more.
Xam-mjinbh t1_is3nqyw wrote
I wonder if an all electric plane would be any bit quieter; like an airliner etc.
Bozzzzzzz t1_is4eki1 wrote
Would think so. Not silent though. Assuming we’re talking propeller driven aircraft (don’t see how jet propulsion could be electrified?) it would sound like a bigger lower buzzy drone sound I imagine.
deck_hand t1_is57dvy wrote
There will always be prop noise. We can also power shrouded fans by electric motor, and those are more efficient than open props. A "turbofan" is a shrouded fan driven by a turbine, and it's currently the most efficient way to propel an airplane.
Bozzzzzzz t1_is5pktj wrote
Shrouded makes sense. A turbofan relies on combustion though as I understand it so not sure that could be replicated with electric only. Could be some way to get more power / efficiency out of electric only systems that has yet to be invented but electric is already more efficient than IC engines (and I would have to think jet propulsion) so we’re already ahead just by going electric.
deck_hand t1_is5pz2d wrote
Sorry I wasn't more clear. It is the "fan" part of turbofan that makes it efficient, not the "turbo" part. The turbine can and does create thrust, but it's relatively inefficient. So they add a "shrouded fan" to the output shaft of the turbine to increase the efficiency of the turbine.
We can add a "shrouded fan" to the output shaft of an electric motor to make the most efficient thrust from the output of the electric motor.
Bozzzzzzz t1_is5qkdg wrote
Yeah no worries, I’m with you on the shrouded part.
Can_swing t1_is4m41a wrote
Wouldn't this drastically reduce the cost of flying? Considering the cost of jet fuel is the biggest operating cost for a flight? Sure electric planes won't work for long haul, or intercontinental flights; electric planes are probably not going to have that much range. But for domestic or short 500km trips, it should become dirt cheap?
RandomlyMethodical t1_is2pe6b wrote
> A novel vertical-stack design also allowed SABERS researchers to create a solid-state battery capable of powering objects at a capacity of 500 watt-hours per kilogram
That's pretty impressive. For comparison, Tesla's Model 3 battery (believed to be the most energy dense battery on the market) is estimated to be around 272-296 Wh/kg
EccentricFan t1_is32jz9 wrote
It'd be fun to see a chart tracking the progress of Wh/kg over time, to visually see how much we're improving year to year.
Though come to think of it, that would be measured as Wh/kg per year, and if we simplified that, would it mean that battery progress of this type can be measured in W/kg?
da5id2701 t1_is3lcpm wrote
Suppose you had a magical 1kg battery which constantly upgrades its capacity to match the state of the art battery tech. The W/kg figure would be the amount of power you have to continuously pump into that battery to keep it fully charged (ignoring self-discharge). I approve of this unit.
wutsizface t1_is3t5dz wrote
Heh heh… unit
safetytrick t1_is3r59l wrote
Everything can be simplified if you are willing to ignore the complexities 😭😩
bl0rq t1_is3y16g wrote
For further comparision: jet fuel is about 12,000 Wh/kg.
MegaHashes t1_is52tat wrote
I think this is a little bit misleading. While Jet fuel is incredibly energy dense, jet engine designs convert only 30-50% of the energy stored in jet fuel into mechanical effort.
I’m not certain what the power efficiency of an equivalent electric based propulsion device would be, but I believe the losses within electromagnetic motor designs are much lower.
That doesn’t exactly close the gap between energy densities, but it does narrow it a lot.
pantsonhead t1_is5v651 wrote
You are forgetting that a dead battery weighs as much as a full one, whereas burned fuel doesn’t weigh anything. Any gains in power efficiency in the context of an airplane is likely to be offset by carrying extra battery weight all the time.
hucktard t1_is6cfu7 wrote
You just have to launch the spent batteries out of the back of the airplane.
MegaHashes t1_is9zkrl wrote
We need r/TheyDidTheMath on the case to prove that.
Commercial airliners never fly on empty, and you can’t gain more jet fuel by covering planes with solar panels they way you can with electricity.
The technology isn’t there yet, and I’m not suggesting it is. My suggestion was only that the energy density numbers don’t tell the full story because of inherent losses when using that energy source.
BioClone t1_iskfo6y wrote
well the environmental hit, and ways to reverse it also needs to appear on the maths by the same reason.
pantsonhead t1_islavry wrote
I guess the point is, some green energy source other than batteries is probably the solution for airplanes i.e. hydrogen/biofuels.
beatthestupidout t1_is4v1i0 wrote
It is, but it requires pumps, heavier engines, etc. to run, and only convert their energy into motive power with around a 30% efficiency compared to the >90% of an electric motor. The batteries are catching up in real terms faster than a simple comparison of densities would suggest.
bl0rq t1_is67xjc wrote
Modern jet engines are closer to 50%. And yes fuel pumps and whatnot have mass too. But so do the supporting things for the electric version. A electric motor about equal to a 787 engine output weighs at least as much. And both it and the battery would need cooling.
> The batteries are catching up in real terms faster than a simple comparison of densities would suggest
They are not. They are dense enough for many things (commuter cars) but not airplanes.
iNstein t1_is3op8t wrote
I think they are referring to the power draw rather than the energy density. So it is possible they have a battery with a power density of 250wh/kg but are able to pull 500 watts from a 1kg battery for half an hour.
blingybangbang t1_is3z2lb wrote
I've lost track of all the nasa inventions that help in the real world, hope they continue being awesome
deck_hand t1_is56eq3 wrote
Yet another new battery that won't make it out of a lab?
AL309 t1_is3avg3 wrote
NASA funded research on this…it bugs me when they say NASA invented something.
UncommercializedKat t1_is3ueet wrote
Oh thank goodness, I thought I wasn't going to see an article about a battery technology breakthrough this week. /s
Only joking. I actually am really excited about battery technology and can't wait to see these.
FuturologyBot t1_is2jugi wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/phife_is_a_dawg:
Solid-state batteries also perform better in stressful environments, as they are less prone to overheating, fire and loss of charge over time, however they typically cannot discharge energy at the same rate as li-ion batteries.
Until now, this has made them unsuitable for powering large electronics, such as electric vehicles, as they require batteries capable of discharging their energy an incredibly fast rate.
This issue was solved by researchers at Nasa’s Solid-state Architecture Batteries for Enhanced Rechargeability and Safety (SABERS) unit, who were able to increase the battery’s discharge rate by a factor of 10 using innovative new materials that have yet to be used in batteries.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y2e8be/nasa_has_invented_a_new_type_of_highperformance/is2fcw0/
StonedScroller t1_is3qobg wrote
We keep hearing about all these new improved batteries but where are they? Only thing I’m seeing is alkaline and lithium
MegaHashes t1_is536jc wrote
With both battery designs, it’s not the electrolyte chemistries that are being drastically altered, is the anode & cathode design that is receiving a lot of attention.
StonedScroller t1_is58gaj wrote
I’m just waiting for a cellphone battery that can last a week, then I’ll quit complaining
[deleted] t1_is48kkp wrote
[removed]
Orc_ t1_is4i051 wrote
I don't believe any battery will ever surpass the energy density of fossil fuels, it's just impossible like not even close making this outside small planes unviable
samson_huki t1_is5k61y wrote
Are batteries still going to be relevant in the near future ?
smart_underachievers t1_is5ofc0 wrote
yes, even more-so with the hopes of renewable energy production, i.e. solar and wind as these tend to be inconsistent at their generation of power over a given day. It be good not to let any over-production of energy at a given moment go to waste.
I don't see there being fewer electronic devices in the future, either.
[deleted] t1_is61umf wrote
[removed]
Lucky7Revolver t1_is6cqqn wrote
Whelp, I’m not flying for at least 10-15 years now.
MpVpRb t1_is2xyuf wrote
Terrible article
Solid state batteries have been under development for years
Brachamul t1_is2yvxa wrote
The "invention" is not solid state batteries. It's a way to discharge them 10 times faster.
phife_is_a_dawg OP t1_is2fcw0 wrote
Solid-state batteries also perform better in stressful environments, as they are less prone to overheating, fire and loss of charge over time, however they typically cannot discharge energy at the same rate as li-ion batteries.
Until now, this has made them unsuitable for powering large electronics, such as electric vehicles, as they require batteries capable of discharging their energy an incredibly fast rate.
This issue was solved by researchers at Nasa’s Solid-state Architecture Batteries for Enhanced Rechargeability and Safety (SABERS) unit, who were able to increase the battery’s discharge rate by a factor of 10 using innovative new materials that have yet to be used in batteries.