Solid state sulfur-lithium battery, 4X energy density:

http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/17081#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_ord=0

This might give cars 4 times the range.

My only query is what publically owned company is going to move ahead with innovation?

I still think that magnesium-sulfur batteries will be the ones that pan-out in the very long run for most applications excluding those applications where the power density is of such critical importance (such as in unmanned electric aircraft ) that it would be worth having a much more expensive battery for the greater power density. This is in spite of them having a theoretical maximum energy density 35% less than that for lithium-sulfur batteries (I have calculated this ) .
The main reason is because magnesium-sulfur batteries would be much cheaper and they would, like lithium-sulfur batteries, still have much greater maximum energy density than any lithium-ion battery and more than enough for most applications and the best ones in the future should still have a power density of at least 8% the power density of octane (I have calculated this as well ) .

They also would have the additional albeit much smaller advantage of being safer than lithium-sulfur batteries if they become broken open and their contents spill out. This is because lithium is significantly more reactive than magnesium and a bit corrosive (unlike magnesium, can easily cause skin burns if touched) and much more likely to start a fire or, if it becomes in contact with enough moisture all at once, explode!
Not that magnesium-sulfur batteries would be completely safe from burning -magnesium can burn extremely fiercely with sulfur (but not as fiercely as lithium burns with sulfur!) and that's why magnesium and sulfur are used in fireworks.

I predict that all electric cars in the far future will be powered by magnesium-sulfur batteries. And I make this prediction after doing a thorough research into all the alternative energy storage systems for a car such as super-conducting rings, super-capacitors, nuclear, hydrogen storage (both with and without hydrogen fuel cells ) and momentum flywheel storage. All these alternatives have there own problems but by far the least problematic and the most practical and cost effective is magnesium-sulfur batteries which is why I think only magnesium-sulfur batteries would be used for cars in the far future.

No really good magnesium-sulfur batteries have been developed yet and I personally think there should be a massive international effort to start to develop them as soon as possible.

Originally posted by humy
I still think that magnesium-sulfur batteries will be the ones that pan-out in the very long run for most applications excluding those applications where the power density is of such critical importance (such as in unmanned electric aircraft ) that it would be worth having a much more expensive battery for the greater power density. This is in spite of them hav ...[text shortened]... nk there should be a massive international effort to start to develop them as soon as possible.

What would be the range vs today's lithium ion batteries in an electric car, pound for pound?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What would be the range vs today's lithium ion batteries in an electric car, pound for pound?

As you are talking here about mass rather than volume; it is the 'specific energy' you want to know here although there is much confusion between energy density and the specific energy and the two are often erroneously stated as the same thing.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery , the specific energy for modern day Lithium-ion batteries is in the range of 0.45–0.95 MJ/kg but I don't know if that is only the theoretical range or the actual range of the current batteries?
-but lets take just the higher value of 0.95 MJ/kg.
My best estimate of the practical (as opposed to the the purely theoretical) limit to the the specific energy of a magnesium-sulfur battery is about 3.1MJ/kg which is just over 3 times higher than the highest figure of 0.95 MJ/kg quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery for lithium ion.

This compares with my best estimate of the practical (as opposed to the the purely theoretical) limit to the the specific energy of a lithium-sulfur battery is about 4.8 MJ/kg which is just over 5 times higher than the highest figure of 0.95 MJ/kg quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery for lithium ion.
But, as I said, the lithuim-sulfur one will be generally less cost effective than the magnesium-sulfur one.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/17081#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_ord=0

This might give cars 4 times the range.

I hope they will see the light of day. They are getting more competitive with petroleum based fuel now.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I hope they will see the light of day. They are getting more competitive with petroleum based fuel now.

Eventually there will be solar paint jobs on cars and maybe 20% at that so you can charge your batteries by having your car parked in the sun all day. Wouldn't that be great! Zero energy requirement. It would be great for gypsies! Imagine a camper with all that square footage covered in solar paint, they go to a camp site, stay for a week gathering energy then off to the next site🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
Eventually there will be solar paint jobs on cars and maybe 20% at that so you can charge your batteries by having your car parked in the sun all day. Wouldn't that be great! Zero energy requirement. It would be great for gypsies! Imagine a camper with all that square footage covered in solar paint, they go to a camp site, stay for a week gathering energy then off to the next site🙂

Don't forget that paint can be used on garages and houses. With these batteries for storage one could use it for home energy as well as plugging the car in overnight. I am up for it, but the energy companies will likely try and kill a technology they can't make money on that competes with the current system of things.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Don't forget that paint can be used on garages and houses. With these batteries for storage one could use it for home energy as well as plugging the car in overnight. I am up for it, but the energy companies will likely try and kill a technology they can't make money on that competes with the current system of things.

Yes but the lure to end our dependence on foreign oil would be great and the energy companies could very well end up controlling solar paint too like they do coal and oil and gas today. The solar paint idea is actually being developed so it is not a pipe dream. The question is not if it can be done but what efficiency will be achieved by this technology. 1% would not cut it. 20% and you have something.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes but the lure to end our dependence on foreign oil would be great and the energy companies could very well end up controlling solar paint too like they do coal and oil and gas today. The solar paint idea is actually being developed so it is not a pipe dream. The question is not if it can be done but what efficiency will be achieved by this technology. 1% would not cut it. 20% and you have something.

There is simply no strong case for paint. You could cover the roof with standard solar cells and get the latest technology and highest efficiency available. Using paint would not significantly increase the surface area available.
For campers, it makes sense to have a solar array that can unfold at the camp site and also be directed to face the sun.
For ordinary commuters the best solution is probably solar panels on the roofs of garages. In hot climates like I live in, you don't really want your car standing in the sun all day as it gets too hot. In cities most of the parking is in multistory covered parking, so solar panels on the car would be useless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is simply no strong case for paint. You could cover the roof with standard solar cells and get the latest technology and highest efficiency available. Using paint would not significantly increase the surface area available.
For campers, it makes sense to have a solar array that can unfold at the camp site and also be directed to face the sun.
For ...[text shortened]... t of the parking is in multistory covered parking, so solar panels on the car would be useless.

Where I work, and for millions of other folk, my car sits out in the sun all day, no help for it and yes it gets hot as hell inside and outside the car.

But the higher the efficiency of solar paint the less energy there is to heat the car in the first place if that energy can be tapped. There are technologies now that converts plain old heat to electricity also so the last story has not been told on the subject.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where I work, and for millions of other folk, my car sits out in the sun all day, no help for it and yes it gets hot as hell inside and outside the car.

So put up covered parking for it with solar cells on the roof. Not only will you keep your car cooler, but the power you save will pay for the covered parking.
Of course here in SA, the solar panels would get stolen, what's the situation there?