Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
spectrum.ieee.org
Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#2[dead]
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#3[dead]
For grid bases storage, energy density does not really matter. What matters is cost and longevity. There are a few emerging battery chemistries that promise to be cheaper and more durable than lithium ion and less vulnerable to hot/cold temperatures as well. The energy density for these is not good enough for things like cars or trucks. But that doesn't matter if the primary application is setting up stationary storage in some field in the middle of nowhere. You literally can just plonk down some containers and wire them up. What matters is being able to deploy these things quickly and cheaply and not having to expend a lot of energy on heating/cooling or worrying about these things catching fire.
For cars and trucks, current batteries are actually fine. Higher energy densities are mainly nice for things like high end sports cars where the form factor prevents cramming in more battery. But less so in freight trucks. Saving a few hundred kilos of mass on a truck that pulls 80 tonne is just not that valuable. It's nice but only if it doesn't raise the price too much. So what if you need a two tonne battery? The main constraint here is cost, not weight.
The aviation market on the other hand has an insatiable demand for high energy density storage. Hence companies like CATL announcing 500wh/kg batteries recently. That's double what you'd find in a high end car these days. And apparently they are working on even higher energy density batteries already.
Probably these are really expensive and hard to get. But it's going to add quite a bit of range to things like VTOL planes, drones, and other flying things that run on batteries. So, a NASA battery with high energy density and a few other nice properties (like needing no cooling/heating) could be worth the extra cost in this market. And better longevity means more time in between expensive overhauls as well.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#4[dead]
CATL's sodium ion batteries are slated to soon (1-2 years, mostly just mundane factory construction and logistics) to hit $40/kwhr. No nickel / cobalt / etc.
I think LFP is basically already under that as well (I think they are in the 60-70/kwhr range).
For grid storage, that is probably the only metric that matters: cost per kwhr of storage (and sufficient cycle endurance).
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#5[dead]
For grid bases storage, energy density does not really matter. What matters is cost and longevity. There are a few emerging battery chemistries that promise to be cheaper and more durable than lithium ion and less vulnerable to hot/cold temperatures as well. The energy density for these is not good enough for things like cars or trucks. But that doesn't matter if the primary application is setting up stationary stora…
> Saving a few hundred kilos of mass on a truck that pulls 80 tonne is just not that valuable.
From my understanding of the trucking industry, in many sectors, this isn't true at all. For example, in tipper trucks where you are carrying literal dirt and rocks from one place to another every kg counts and tare weight of the truck is very much a consideration, even in the relatively minor variations between diesel trucks.
In the US weight restrictions are even lower than in Europe in many states.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#6[dead]
[deleted]
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#7[dead]
For grid bases storage, energy density does not really matter. What matters is cost and longevity. There are a few emerging battery chemistries that promise to be cheaper and more durable than lithium ion and less vulnerable to hot/cold temperatures as well. The energy density for these is not good enough for things like cars or trucks. But that doesn't matter if the primary application is setting up stationary stora…
Current electric semis are only good for hauling potato chips (i.e. mostly air) for any distance over 100km.
Weight is very very valuable on both passenger cars and commercial trucks. Hauling those extra 300-500kg vs a comparable size sedan comes at a steep cost too, as increasing weight requires stronger/wheels body, wheels, brakes, even engines.
There is a huge demand for higher energy density, preferably of a non-explosive kind.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
For grid bases storage, energy density does not really matter. What matters is cost and longevity. There are a few emerging battery chemistries that promise to be cheaper and more durable than lithium ion and less vulnerable to hot/cold temperatures as well. The energy density for these is not good enough for things like cars or trucks. But that doesn't matter if the primary application is setting up stationary stora…
Current electric semis are only good for hauling potato chips (i.e. mostly air) for any distance over 100km. Weight is very very valuable on both passenger cars and commercial trucks. Hauling those extra 300-500kg vs a comparable size sedan comes at a steep cost too, as increasing weight requires stronger/wheels body, wheels, brakes, even engines. There is a huge demand for higher energy density, preferably of a non-…
As I understand it, electric cars are actually surprisingly polluting, which is a consequence of their battery weight and particulates from tires:
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#9[dead]
For grid bases storage, energy density does not really matter. What matters is cost and longevity. There are a few emerging battery chemistries that promise to be cheaper and more durable than lithium ion and less vulnerable to hot/cold temperatures as well. The energy density for these is not good enough for things like cars or trucks. But that doesn't matter if the primary application is setting up stationary stora…
EVs do 100% need to get lighter. They are still quite a bit heavier than their ICE equivalents and tyre wear is (IMO) underappreciated as a toxin/pollutant.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#10[dead]
> the battery catalyst is a Nickel-Molybdenum-Cobalt alloy, which seems like a pretty rare, expensive component.
So you didn't read the article? The piece states: "Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs $20/kg." For a catalyst, that doesn't sound too expensive.
> Their published research cites a $~83/kWh cost for just the materials (that's not very cheap)
That's all very nice, but that number is from a paper from 2018. And they state that it is the battery cost: "The estimated cost of the nickel-hydrogen battery reaches as low as ∼$83 per kilowatt-hour".
And pulling up 2018 data for LiIon, we get $~198/kWh.. (For instance, from here: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-...)