Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#11

Post by thfuran »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #4
scott_h wrote: post #2

[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).

And aren’t those batteries meant to be comparable in density to current lipo, to exceed that handily in their next generation?

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#12

Post by danw1979 »

This sounds great on paper but there’s a couple of questions left hanging:

> We take the battery, put it in an open fire, and watch it continue to heat up. What ends up happening is that the pressure above top charge will force the hydrogen back into water. And then we have a release valve designed into the unit so at a predesigned pressure and temperature that will release, and you’ll get a steam vent.”

But what about the hydrogen ? doesn’t that risk getting vented out with the steam ? into the barbecue ?

What’s the self discharge characteristics ?

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#13

Post by RhodesianHunter »

fransje26 wrote: post #10
scott_h wrote: post #2

[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)…

Not the mention the comparative differences in economies of scale, given that one of these has been scaled while the other has not.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#14

Post by jakobnissen »

gameoverhumans wrote: post #8
jojobas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: https://dynomight.net/tires/

The blog in your link seems to conclude that electric cars pollute less than petrol cars overall. Still, if the blog is true, it's still surprising that such a large amount of air pollution comes from tyres and brakes. A little Googling does support this claim.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#16

Post by atoav »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #5
jillesvangurp wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

> 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 truc…

> In the US weight restrictions are even lower than in Europe in many states.

Given that road wear grows to the fourth power (!) with vehicle weight, I hope you guys feel well with the fact that your tax dollar subsidizes those ultra heavy trucks.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#17

Post by jojobas »

jakobnissen wrote: post #14
gameoverhumans wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, electric cars are actually surprisingly polluting, which is a consequence of their battery weight and particulates from tires: https://dynomight.net/tires/

The blog in your link seems to conclude that electric cars pollute less than petrol cars overall. Still, if the blog is true, it's still surprising that such a large amount of air pollution comes from tyres and brakes. A little Googling does support this claim.

It could have something to do with the fact that in order to regen-brake a 1800kg car at your typical 0.5g at 100 km/h you need some 270kW of motor/generator power. This is the main reason your Teslas and Polestars have these otherwise outlandish engines, and if you already have it, why not accelerate at traction limit, creating all these aerosols and what not.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#18

Post by sheepshear »

danw1979 wrote: post #12

This sounds great on paper but there’s a couple of questions left hanging: > We take the battery, put it in an open fire, and watch it continue to heat up. What ends up happening is that the pressure above top charge will force the hydrogen back into water. And then we have a release valve designed into the unit so at a predesigned pressure and temperature that will release, and you’ll get a steam vent.” But what abo…

A hydrogen fuel cell also vents and you can ignite the concentrated stream like a blow torch. At 5% the pressure of a H fuel cell, the battery probably vents less hydrogen.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#19

Post by soco »

danw1979 wrote: post #12

This sounds great on paper but there’s a couple of questions left hanging: > We take the battery, put it in an open fire, and watch it continue to heat up. What ends up happening is that the pressure above top charge will force the hydrogen back into water. And then we have a release valve designed into the unit so at a predesigned pressure and temperature that will release, and you’ll get a steam vent.” But what abo…

How are today's batteries doing when put in the barbecue fire? The new ones only need to not do (much) worse.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#20

Post by gameoverhumans »

jakobnissen wrote: post #14
gameoverhumans wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, electric cars are actually surprisingly polluting, which is a consequence of their battery weight and particulates from tires: https://dynomight.net/tires/

The blog in your link seems to conclude that electric cars pollute less than petrol cars overall. Still, if the blog is true, it's still surprising that such a large amount of air pollution comes from tyres and brakes. A little Googling does support this claim.

I wasn't making any kind of comparison to petrol cars! I guess it seemed like I was and that explains the downvotes, perhaps?

All I was trying to do is add some support to the claim that battery density does matter in cars (contrary to ancestor assertion). Less weight = less strain on brakes and tires = less nasties in the air and our lungs.

Post reply on HN