Will this improve vaping one day?
The Solid-State Lithium-Ion Battery — Has John Goodenough Finally Done It? | CleanTechnica
The Solid-State Lithium-Ion Battery — Has John Goodenough Finally Done It? | CleanTechnica
Interesting new battery technology article.
- Thread starter alvitae
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- battery interesting new technology
- Status
At least it seems to be a step into the right direction, opposed to the actual trends of "simple finetuning" and "bigger is better", because in the long run LiIon cells as we know them, are a dying technology in a world that hungers for more and more power.
Although his results seem interesting, I don't know whether Goodenough's research is good enough for todays practical use or not, because there are a lot of other factors not taken into account here.
If one of his cells has a marketprice equal to that a small caribbean island for example, the practical benefit for the endconsumer tends to be near zero.
Although I don't want to discredit Goodenough in any way, I have to agree with his critics to a certain point, because some independent testing of his results would be advisable, before anyone jumps on the hypetrain.
Although his results seem interesting, I don't know whether Goodenough's research is good enough for todays practical use or not, because there are a lot of other factors not taken into account here.
If one of his cells has a marketprice equal to that a small caribbean island for example, the practical benefit for the endconsumer tends to be near zero.
Although I don't want to discredit Goodenough in any way, I have to agree with his critics to a certain point, because some independent testing of his results would be advisable, before anyone jumps on the hypetrain.
There are various attempts at a solid state lithium battery going on. One of them is likely to work even if this one is flawed. The smallest energy density improvement claim I have seen is 30% which is still huge. They’re years and years away though afaik
This is "old" news, made the rounds more than a year ago already, dunnoh why it's surfacing again now with no new information added. There is a lot of skepticism about this battery (from scientists as well as battery experts and manufacturers) and the proposed mechanisms don't seem to be well founded, ie the creator(s) don't really know themselves what makes the battery work (and their projections might be highly exaggerated). A later supposed clarification (Fermi effect) only added fuel to the fire... along with claims of inceasing capacity through use.
I have a slightly different (skeptical and semi humourous) take that goes like this (and may be as wrong as a beer based on earwax):
the proposed specific energy of the new battery is about 5 times that of conventional LiIon cells, that puts it in the rough ballpark of an "energy source" like TNT (wikipedia numbers)
TNT 4.610 MJ/kg
Lithium-ion battery 0.36–0.875 MJ/kg
TNT is tightly packed and every single molecule stores energy. In a battery that's impossible, there's an anode, a cathode, a separator and an electrolyte but the energy is only stored in one place, meaning there has to be much higher energy concentration there, more akin to
Jet fuel + 2*oxygen mix 14 MJ/kg (jet fuel by itself has higher specific energy but you need oxygen to release it)
This is about as good as it gets with storing chemical energy.
So something with that kind of concentrated energy is somehow supposed to be safer than our current batteries?
Add to that a proposed sodium anode and I know I don't want to be anywhere near that if it shorts out, the energy can't just disappear into nothing. Somebody else will have to test what happens during a hard short
Like I said, wild speculation from my end with no basis in actual calculations, remember our body fat has about the same specific energy as jet fuel. So not to be confused with actual science (though I've gone through great length to at least sound sciency-ish
). Somehow the supposed safety will have to be addressed though since the heat generated by a short will be nothing to laugh at and the addition of a demonic element like pure sodium to that inferno doesn't exactly increase confidence.
As mentioned this new wave of articles (the above isn't the only one) gives the exact same information as one year ago (and again in November of last year). Why does this happen now, what's the cause if there is nothing new to say?
I have a slightly different (skeptical and semi humourous) take that goes like this (and may be as wrong as a beer based on earwax):
the proposed specific energy of the new battery is about 5 times that of conventional LiIon cells, that puts it in the rough ballpark of an "energy source" like TNT (wikipedia numbers)
TNT 4.610 MJ/kg
Lithium-ion battery 0.36–0.875 MJ/kg
TNT is tightly packed and every single molecule stores energy. In a battery that's impossible, there's an anode, a cathode, a separator and an electrolyte but the energy is only stored in one place, meaning there has to be much higher energy concentration there, more akin to
Jet fuel + 2*oxygen mix 14 MJ/kg (jet fuel by itself has higher specific energy but you need oxygen to release it)
This is about as good as it gets with storing chemical energy.
So something with that kind of concentrated energy is somehow supposed to be safer than our current batteries?
Add to that a proposed sodium anode and I know I don't want to be anywhere near that if it shorts out, the energy can't just disappear into nothing. Somebody else will have to test what happens during a hard short
Like I said, wild speculation from my end with no basis in actual calculations, remember our body fat has about the same specific energy as jet fuel
. So not to be confused with actual science (though I've gone through great length to at least sound sciency-ish). Somehow the supposed safety will have to be addressed though since the heat generated by a short will be nothing to laugh at and the addition of a demonic element like pure sodium to that inferno doesn't exactly increase confidence.As mentioned this new wave of articles (the above isn't the only one) gives the exact same information as one year ago (and again in November of last year). Why does this happen now, what's the cause if there is nothing new to say?
Last edited:
To add a little more serious info from the skeptical side of things here's an article of a Swedish battery expert
At least I seem to be on the right track regarding the heat thing
On the skepticism surrounding the "Goodenough battery"
At least I seem to be on the right track regarding the heat thing
I lost focus at earwax beerThis is "old" news, made the rounds more than a year ago already, dunnoh why it's surfacing again now with no new information added. There is a lot of skepticism about this battery (from scientists as well as battery experts and manufacturers) and the proposed mechanisms don't seem to be well founded, ie the creator(s) don't really know themselves what makes the battery work (and their projections might be highly exaggerated). A later supposed clarification (Fermi effect) only added fuel to the fire... along with claims of inceasing capacity through use.
I have a slightly different (skeptical and semi humourous) take that goes like this (and may be as wrong as a beer based on earwax):
the proposed specific energy of the new battery is about 5 times that of conventional LiIon cells, that puts it in the rough ballpark of an "energy source" like TNT (wikipedia numbers)
TNT 4.610 MJ/kg
Lithium-ion battery 0.36–0.875 MJ/kg
TNT is tightly packed and every single molecule stores energy. In a battery that's impossible, there's an anode, a cathode, a separator and an electrolyte but the energy is only stored in one place, meaning there has to be much higher energy concentration there, more akin to
Jet fuel + 2*oxygen mix 14 MJ/kg (jet fuel by itself has higher specific energy but you need oxygen to release it)
This is about as good as it gets with storing chemical energy.
So something with that kind of concentrated energy is somehow supposed to be safer than our current batteries?
Add to that a proposed sodium anode and I know I don't want to be anywhere near that if it shorts out, the energy can't just disappear into nothing. Somebody else will have to test what happens during a hard short
Like I said, wild speculation from my end with no basis in actual calculations, remember our body fat has about the same specific energy as jet fuel
As mentioned this new wave of articles (the above isn't the only one) gives the exact same information as one year ago (and again in November of last year). Why does this happen now, what's the cause if there is nothing new to say?
- Status
Similar threads
