Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 05 Feb '18 13:13 / 7 edits
    https://techxplore.com/news/2018-02-metal-oxide-magnesium-battery-high-density-energy.html

    this isn't the magnesium-sulfur type of battery I believe will be the one that will pan out as the best one of choice in the long run (at least if flow-batteries do NOT pan out in the vary long run. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery ) but, still, it is good because it should be both more energy dense and much cheaper than the lithium-ion batteries.

    Also of some interest is this latest research into lithium-sulfur batteries;
    https://techxplore.com/news/2017-12-graphene-lithium-sulfur-batteries.html

    and the new lithium-iron-oxide battery;
    https://techxplore.com/news/2018-01-battery-leverages-iron-oxygen-lithium.html

    although I don't think lithium-based batteries will pan out in the very long run because lithium will be replaced with much cheaper plentiful metals (probably mainly if not entirely magnesium)

    what makes me excited is that the battery technology is relentlessly improving all the time and now I am cautiously optimistic it wouldn't be very long now (well within my lifetime) before one type (and I bet it would be either magnesium-sulfur battery or a flow battery; don't know which) will be made so good as to provide ultra-cheap off-the-grid energy storage for renewable energy using only common cheap none-toxic recyclable materials and no rare-earth elements.
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    05 Feb '18 20:52
    Originally posted by @humy
    https://techxplore.com/news/2018-02-metal-oxide-magnesium-battery-high-density-energy.html

    this isn't the magnesium-sulfur type of battery I believe will be the one that will pan out as the best one of choice in the long run (at least if flow-batteries do NOT pan out in the vary long run. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery ) but, still, it is go ...[text shortened]... wable energy using only common cheap none-toxic recyclable materials and no rare-earth elements.
    Also safer, Mag batteries don't explode. They say also it could be 5 times the energy density if they solve so sticky problems. If you had batteries giving cars 500 km range it would also put a lot of energy pressure on the recharging stations. You might have to wait twice as long to recharge the batteries with the same voltage and current or twice the current to get the same charging time. Then the question would be can such a battery actually accept such huge charging currents without overheating itself.
  3. 05 Feb '18 21:37 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    You might have to wait twice as long to recharge the batteries with the same voltage and current or twice the current to get the same charging time.
    but you shouldn't have to wait if at the station you simply swap your discharged battery for a recharged one and then the discharged battery is recharged at the station over many hours (if not days) for another car much later on. By making all the batteries of the same standard size and voltage, the batteries could be simply swapped around within seconds with each car visit without anyone having to ever wait around for a battery to be recharge.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 Feb '18 16:49
    Originally posted by @humy
    but you shouldn't have to wait if at the station you simply swap your discharged battery for a recharged one and then the discharged battery is recharged at the station over many hours (if not days) for another car much later on. By making all the batteries of the same standard size and voltage, the batteries could be simply swapped around within seconds with each car visit without anyone having to ever wait around for a battery to be recharge.
    That would mean you would have a central charging station, like petrol stations of today but they energy used by them would be enormous, suppose each one could charge 100 batteries at the same time and now instead of the usual 25 kwH battery set they are each one 100 kwH units times and say it takes 8 hours to charge each one fully, that would translate into an energy requirement of 1/3 of a megawatt 24/7 for each station, times that by enough charging stations for all cars, say in the US where there are what, 10 million
    it looks like you would have to have 100,000 or so such charging stations consuming 30 gigawatts 24/7. I guess that is not as much energy as present combustion engines use though, say a petrol engine generates an average of 125 horsepower that would be equivalent to about 100 Kw per car times 10 million, which sounds like around 100 gigawatts if all that energy was converted to electricity. Still, that energy comes out of the ground not the grid.

    How many cars are there in your country? Can the power grid handle them all if they were converted to all electric and magnesium batteries?
  5. 06 Feb '18 18:48 / 8 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    That would mean you would have a central charging station, like petrol stations of today but they energy used by them would be enormous, suppose each one could charge 100 batteries at the same time and now instead of the usual 25 kwH battery set they are each one 100 kwH units times and say it takes 8 hours to charge each one fully, that would translate in ...[text shortened]... n the power grid handle them all if they were converted to all electric and magnesium batteries?
    I don't see any problem here. So a lot of batteries will be needed. Why might the power grid "not handle them all" if each battery was slowly recharged in, lets say, an ~8 hour period, as apposed to being much more rapidly rechareged in, lets say, a 10 minute period? The same total amount of energy from the grid will be needed in either case regardless of how many more or less batteries there would be. If anything, because it would help to even out some of the wild fluctuations between supply and demand, I would imagine recharging them gradually rather than rapidly would put less strain on the grid, not more strain!

    There already exists power grids for an all-electric train system and those grids seem to "handle them all" (all the trains) and yet that is without any benefit from energy storage. So I don't see any particular reason why a similar system for all-electric cars but with some (albeit limited) benefit from energy storage might mean such a grid cannot "handle them all".
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 Feb '18 21:02
    Originally posted by @humy
    I don't see any problem here. So a lot of batteries will be needed. Why might the power grid "not handle them all" if each battery was slowly recharged in, lets say, an ~8 hour period, as apposed to being much more rapidly rechareged in, lets say, a 10 minute period? The same total amount of energy from the grid will be needed in either case regardless of how ...[text shortened]... me (albeit limited) benefit from energy storage might mean such a grid cannot "handle them all".
    It sounds like the possibility is there for the charging stations to also be able to be tapped as emergency power distribution stations like Musk is trying to set up in Australia, using rooftop cells generating 5 KW each and the excess going into the grid. The same thing could be engineered into these future charging stations, they would each one have maybe a megawatt hour at least available in an emergency. What do you think?

    Of course charging at 8 hour time would require the same energy but not as dense as if it was like you said, doing the same thing in 10 minutes, 1/6th of an hour or nearly 50 times the power needed, 50 times the current at same voltage or some combo like 12 times the current and 4 times the voltage. It all adds up to the same thing in the battery.
  7. 07 Feb '18 10:42
    Originally posted by @humy
    but you shouldn't have to wait if at the station you simply swap your discharged battery for a recharged one and then the discharged battery is recharged at the station over many hours (if not days) for another car much later on. By making all the batteries of the same standard size and voltage, the batteries could be simply swapped around within seconds with each car visit without anyone having to ever wait around for a battery to be recharge.
    So you'd trust your car to a package that has recently been in the possession of a random, completely unknown (to you at least) member of the public? Or are you suggesting making changes cost $2000 each because of a complete overhaul by a certified engineer?

    Don't get me wrong, you can trust 90% of the public not to intentionally mess with the thing, and of those 10%, only .01% will be malicious. That's still too great a risk of some free energy nut unintentionally ruining my trip, or car, or life.
    And that's not taking into account that these things will be run by a chip, and therefore vulnerable to both simple mistreatment and malware.
  8. 07 Feb '18 11:29 / 8 edits
    Originally posted by @shallow-blue
    So you'd trust your car to a package that has recently been in the possession of a random, completely unknown (to you at least) member of the public? Or are you suggesting making changes cost $2000 each because of a complete overhaul by a certified engineer?

    Don't get me wrong, you can trust 90% of the public not to intentionally mess with the thing ...[text shortened]... things will be run by a chip, and therefore vulnerable to both simple mistreatment and malware.
    I would imagine it be relatively rare that a user of a battery would intentionally do something harmful to it before returning it; what would be the motive? Just pure spite? Or just stupidity?

    And, besides, in the what I think would be the unlikely event of that becoming a problem, there can be countermeasures to trackdown who is doing it. For example, each battery could be given a unique serial number and which car owners last used it could be recorded and so, if some of them become messed up with signs of them being messed up deliberately, it would be possible to trace who keeps messing them up and stop him keep doing it by throwing him in jail for mindless vandalism or at the very least ban him from driving or being in possession of such a battery.

    I remember the time when one would put out your empty milk bottles so that they can be cleaned up and reused for the next person that wanted milk. I never heard of anyone messing up the bottles they returned so I guess that happened relatively rarely. I see no reason why this wouldn't also be the case for batteries.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Feb '18 12:43
    Originally posted by @humy
    I would imagine it be relatively rare that a user of a battery would intentionally do something harmful to it before returning it; what would be the motive? Just pure spite? Or just stupidity?

    And, besides, in the what I think would be the unlikely event of that becoming a problem, there can be countermeasures to trackdown who is doing it. For example, eac ...[text shortened]... at happened relatively rarely. I see no reason why this wouldn't also be the case for batteries.
    Also, how many present day petrol stations have been hacked to mess up cars or cause the pumps to explode or some such?
  10. 07 Feb '18 15:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Also, how many present day petrol stations have been hacked to mess up cars or cause the pumps to explode or some such?
    how often does that happen? I for one have never once seen explosions happen at any petrol station in real life. I think I would much more likely get run over by a car even though I am very careful.
    Does it happen often enough to make petrol stations unusable or too dangerous for most customers?
    Is there any particular reason to think battery stations would be any more prone to attack?
    Is there anything blocking countermeasures, such as installing security cameras and firewalling computers etc, against potential attack?
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Feb '18 15:46
    Originally posted by @humy
    how often does that happen? I for one have never once seen explosions happen at any petrol station in real life. I think I would much more likely get run over by a car even though I am very careful.
    Does it happen often enough to make petrol stations unusable or too dangerous for most customers?
    Is there any particular reason to think battery stations woul ...[text shortened]... es, such as installing security cameras and firewalling computers etc, against potential attack?
    That was my point. The only explosions I ever saw was when a car or truck ran into the pump, never saw anything deliberate like bombs or deliberate ramming. So I think it is just paranoia that someone would bring up that point Vis a V electric stations.

    What do you think about the idea such charging stations could be emergency power?
  12. Standard member pawnpaw
    Please Pay Attention
    20 Feb '18 13:47
    Originally posted by @humy
    https://techxplore.com/news/2018-02-metal-oxide-magnesium-battery-high-density-energy.html

    this isn't the magnesium-sulfur type of battery I believe will be the one that will pan out as the best one of choice in the long run (at least if flow-batteries do NOT pan out in the vary long run. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery ) but, still, it is go ...[text shortened]... wable energy using only common cheap none-toxic recyclable materials and no rare-earth elements.
    I noticed that Elon Musk's Tesla company installed a massive battery setup in South Australia, using lithium-ion tecnology.
    Is it an indication of the direction the industry is moving?
  13. 20 Feb '18 15:38 / 8 edits
    Originally posted by @pawnpaw
    I noticed that Elon Musk's Tesla company installed a massive battery setup in South Australia, using lithium-ion tecnology.
    Is it an indication of the direction the industry is moving?
    I think it is just a matter of when, not if, we will (eventually) have cost-effective wide-scale stationary off-the-grid energy storage for electric grid power throughout the world.

    However, I think that would be extremely unlikely to come about with lithium-based batteries that I think will always be just too expensive to scale up for that purpose.
    We will have to wait until we have much cheaper batteries made of cheap common chemical elements and in my opinion (based on my personal calculations using the Gibbs function and my analysis of the periodic table of elements and how available each element is) the most promising candidate for that in the very long run is magnesium-sulfur batteries. We will never become short of let alone run out of magnesium or sulfur.

    Magnesium-air batteries would also be doable but I bet they would be generally rejected in favor of magnesium-sulfur batteries because magnesium-air batteries require air to enter into them and that would cause the problem of water vapor entering in (with the air) and reacting with the magnesium to produce hydrogen and magnesium hydroxide resulting in lose of energy efficiency and reduced battery-life.