Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SemanticTriangle t1_izw77z6 wrote

50% capacity loss after 1000 cycles, requires Mo, which is only about 30% cheaper per kg than Li. 2/3rds of the theoretical energy density of sodium sulfur. Lots of engineering learning required to go from research to viability, and no strong record at University of Sydney for continuous process improvement or technology transfer to industry -- although I have not dealt with this school or group before and they might certainly be better. Not overly exciting as a candidate unless they show more.

253

brodneys t1_izx02jn wrote

I'm going into battery tech as a mechanical engineer and I also keep seeing novel new chemistries show up all over the place with people fawning over it being the next big thing. I saw the same thing with some vanadium redox flow battery, and obviously the fine print was that it was a redox flow battery, and was only really suitable for maybe large scale power grid batteries.

I think the truth is probably just that we need to use whatever a) works decently b) has useful properties (durability, stability, form factor, cheap to produce etc.) And c) we have a lot of. There are tons of metals that are theoretically (or more recently, practically) decent for battery technologies if you can squeeze multiple ionization states out of them, it's just a matter of implementation

48

UrbanGhost114 t1_izxb2bz wrote

I have been watching battery tech since the batteries dies on my game boy. This is always the story. Some crazy new tech is announced, and never heard from again, because it's not commercially viable compared to what we already have, or to get it to market to begin with.

Edit to add: This is not to say we shouldn't be researching this stuff, just saying to temper expectations.

31

rushingkar t1_izxj7x9 wrote

And when something does come to market, it happens gradually enough that we as consumers don't really notice. Batteries gave gotten better over time, but devices have also gotten more power hungry so it's a balanced curve. Imagine how long a game boy would last on a modern cell phone battery

20

big_trike t1_izxueyx wrote

Your game boy batteries were probably nickel cadmium. That technology took a long time to charge, had a low energy density, and relied on toxic cadmium. The technology has improved quite a bit since then.

6

WhiteHelljumper t1_izycbv0 wrote

Sodium sulfur batteries aren't anything new. The main issue with them is they need to be kept at like 300 degrees Celsius to work. This article is claiming a working sodium battery at room temperature.

6

Drusgar t1_izxr5a4 wrote

I'm sure someone complained about the viability of lithium batteries, too. It's the nature of invention, right? Lots of trial and error. Eventually you get a decent process and product. And then it gets replaced.

It would be nice to see some technology that utilizes a metal that's more abundant and cheaper than lithium. So I guess they keep experimenting.

4

brodneys t1_izxu58k wrote

Well yeah, I think I remember that happening actually, and at the time they were correct: a lot of work had to go into lithium batteries to get them to the commercially viable state that they're at today. I'm glad that work was done, and that people were excited about it, but I am slightly concerned about the broader trend of the public/journalists not being able to simultaneously a) be excited and b) understand that even a big breakthrough is more than nothing but less than everything.

Also I'm actually gonna be working on that exact technology and I'm extremely excited about it!!

6

Drusgar t1_izyqn6b wrote

Hey, we've got people buzzing about cold fusion again. They've been talking about that since I was a kid in the 80's.

2

Malkor t1_izzyfn9 wrote

Yeah, but for real this time!

2

Nonstampcollector777 t1_izxeaa1 wrote

So after 5 years of charging it has double the capacity of lithium ion.

That is double the capacity of a li-ion in 5 years when the li-ion is brand new.

Usually within 5 years you will have replaced your phone or the battery.

Got it.

14

vin227 t1_izz1y6v wrote

In addition, 1000 cycles is a LOT. I think even the heavy users would struggle to use 1000 cycles of for example 200kWh (4x a reasonable amount of 50kW) within the usable lifetime of all the other parts of the vehicle. With consumption of 0.3kWh/mile you would need to drive over 600k miles to have the battery degrade to "just" 100kWh, which still means 300 mile range.

2

hobojojo t1_izxmtuo wrote

I'm with you, SemanticTri has different expectations that seem unreasonable

1

taistelumursu t1_izx980i wrote

The production of molybdenum is only 300kt/a, which is really not much. If we would start using it in batteries on large scale the price would skyrocket eliminating the price advantage.

13

drfrogsplat t1_izwx8fh wrote

> and no strong record at University of Sydney for continuous process improvement or technology transfer to industry

What does this mean? Seems a strange and broad brush to tar a university with. In my experience, they are quite diverse school to school, faculty to faculty, with varying levels of competence and experience in industry engagement.

8

acelaya35 t1_izwu2mt wrote

What do you do that requires you to "deal" with Universities?

7

SemanticTriangle t1_izwv0dd wrote

Neighbour, this is a science sub. Many of us attended universities or have worked at them or with them.

22

acelaya35 t1_izwvgiw wrote

So, what do you do?

8

Fatimus t1_izwxdt8 wrote

From grad students and postdocs working on their research, up to tech companies that give support to university research labs.

6

giggitygoo123 t1_izxb7xs wrote

50% loss is still 2x current capacity

5

takanishi79 t1_izy0m2i wrote

Good or bad, a lot of the discussion around new battery technology is about electric vehicles, and that much degradation is a non starter for an EV. I assume that's 50% degradation even with thermal management, which is way worse than any modern EV, and basically as bad as the most abused Gen 1 Leaf.

Most modern EVs expect at most a 20% degradation within 10 years (US law requires manufacturers to provide an 8 year/100k mile warranty in the battery). While double capacity sounds nice, it wouldn't be for cars. As is now, you just could not put this into a car, it would degreade faster than the warranty, so you'd be replacing under warranty constantly (financial suicide), or if you got the warranty requirements changes, they would like reduce the battery size (same range, lower weight), and then you have the problems with the Leaf on everything.

That said, new battery technologies are good. 5 years is probably fine for a phone (assuming they don't reduce battery sizes to compensate, which is not guaranteed), or for industrial application (size your needed battery for the 50% reduction, and you'll just have more capacity before it degrades.

It reminds me of another that was posted either here or to r/electricvehicles, which was a battery with almost no degradation, but power density was really low. It would be a decent option for a power wall, but again awful for an EV due to the weight issues.

5

vin227 t1_izyp22e wrote

If you take the 4x capacity, lets say take a 300 mile current battery, now you have 1200 mile range. If we take 1000 cycles at 50% capacity it is 600,000 miles, way more than the vast majority of cars last, and you still have a 600 mile range. 1000 cycles is a lot and barely any battery goes through 1000 cycles in consumer use.

EDIT: With the 100k mile warranty you are barely reaching 100 full charge cycles so if we assume linear degradation the battery has degraded by just around 5%, which would be reasonable amount for any current EV to degrade within 100k miles.

3

giggitygoo123 t1_izy9gh2 wrote

I was thinking more in terms of a phone when I wrote that. Great news for phones, not so much with EV

1

carloandreaguilar t1_izxlepg wrote

Maybe is the battery is limited to o it use the middle 80% of capacity, it won’t degrade nearly as much, like Tesla batteries

1

BellyFloppinChubs t1_izzfzit wrote

What tools/metrics are you using to assess tech transfer to industry? Also, how are you assessing continuous improvement within the academic environment?

1