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

Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 331 posts

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#51

Post by ricardobeat »

clickety_clack wrote: post #17
laxisOp wrote: post #6

We need way more research on batteries. People cant ingine what is possible if we make battery 10x energy dense.

I think people can imagine lighter cars and laptops and things. Is there something bizarre that’s unlocked like battery powered space launches or something?

Aviation, drones with hours+ flight range, more solar power usage as storage gets easier/cheaper, phones that last more than a day, robots with actually useful battery life, smaller IoT devices. A lot of current tech is severely limited by battery capacity.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#52

Post by emptyfile »

jgilias wrote: post #29
zamadatix wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less weight (all else being equal) is the same thing as more battery for drones. I.e. better range, payload mass, and/or flight time. You probably want both cheap and poor performing as well as expensive and high performing available.

In current battle conditions isn’t the range primarily determined by the size of the fiber optic spool attached to the drone than battery capacity?

[dead]

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#53

Post by rogerrogerr »

jqbd wrote: post #42
heaney-555 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Range is not a real issue for electric cars. Charging time is, though, and there are massive improvements happening for that right now.

I would wager charging time is basically solved, adoption is only thing that's left.

Yeah, when I take a road trip I genuinely enjoy the cadence of charging. 5-10 minutes every two hours, just enough to go to the bathroom or walk around. I get to my destination not materially later, and feeling far more relaxed than when I was doing death marches in a gas car.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#54

Post by toss1 »

laxisOp wrote: post #6

We need way more research on batteries. People cant ingine what is possible if we make battery 10x energy dense.

It should be relatively straightforward to imagine — we already have that in gasoline-powered internal combustion engines.

The Watt-hours per kilogram of good Lithium Ion batteries is around 250-280 Wh/Kg; for Lithium Iron Phosphate it's about 180 Wh/kg, and for Sodium-Ion about 170 Wh/Kg.

The raw energy in gasoline is about 12,300 Wh/Kg but automobile internal combustion engines get only about 20-30% efficiency yielding about 2500-3600 Wh/Kg. For aviation piston engines it is a bit better at 25-30$ so 3000-3600 Wh/kg.

So, the batteries, instead of being 10-12X the weight of the gasoline for the same net driving/flying range, could weigh about the same as the gasoline. So, a typical car with maybe a 16 gallon tank and 30 miles per gallon fills up with 128 pounds (58 kg) of gasoline to get 480 miles of range. The Li-Ion battery for that range would weigh something like 1300 Lbs (590 kg). That is a substantial additional weight for a car that could be 2800-3800 Lbs in ICE configuration, so 35-45% added weight (a bit less because of savings on the ICE engine, etc). This requires everything else to also be heavier, from the structural frame, the suspension system, and even the wheels and tires (which is also unsprung weight, further impairing performance).

With a 130Lb/60kg battery instead, and saving the weight of the ICE engine and fuel system, the overall car design could go much more lightweight, regaining a lot of performance and range, all while gaining the huge torque of electric motors.

In aviation, a battery systems of that weight would enable all-electric aviation to go from small performance niches to the default for general aviation.

So yes, it would be a HUGE benefit to achieve 10X energy density batteries, and we do have reference points for people to imagine it.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#55

Post by hannasanarion »

GlibMonkeyDeath wrote: post #18

The article gives the technical reasons that answer the headline question (e.g. potential for better energy density) I am surprised they didn't point out the literal "killer app" - military drones. Energy density is king for any airborne power source. And dendrite growth during charge/discharge cycling isn't as big a deal for that application (how many times would you need to charge a disposable weapon?)

For disposable applications like that, aren't there single-use chemistries that are better already? I'm thinking by analogy to things like:

- WW2 proximity fuzes that had batteries where the electrolyte was in a vial that got smashed by the G-forces of being shot out of a cannon providing power to the radio inside for the 10 seconds it needs to get to the incoming aircraft

- Hearing aid Zinc-Air batteries, that are extremely energy dense because you only have to actually manufacture the anode, the cathode is the entire atmosphere of the Earth

- Missile batteries, which are often Lithium-silicon/Iron Disulfide batteries that borrow some thermal energy from the rocket motor to get a molten salt electrolyte

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#56

Post by lightedman »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #5

Solid state batteries come in several flavours. Most of them don't stop dendrites. The flavour you want is polymer, single ion conducting solid state with an ion transport activation energy below 10kJ/mol at room temperature and no phase transitions from -40C to 80C. That is the holy grail of SS batteries.

"no phase transitions from -40C to 80C."

Well that's fine for terrestrial use but aerospace needs that range to be expanded a little in both directions, otherwise it won't be much of a holy grail if it won't cover the needs of one of the largest growing industries.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#57

Post by butvacuum »

trollbridge wrote: post #14
laxisOp wrote: post #6

We need way more research on batteries. People cant ingine what is possible if we make battery 10x energy dense.

I can - it’s called a bomb. Some of the problems with batteries are heat dissipation (one of those problems that superconductors would mostly solve), fire safety, and end of life disposal. Higher energy density makes it even worse. A good place to start would be a BMS on individual cells that monitors them for general degradation, unexpected discharge, unexpected temperature changes, and can remove a failing cell fro…

Have a look at Electric impedance spectroscopy- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_spectroscopy

Theres a handfull of Tier 1 BMS chips that support it already. though, half of them are meant for traction/EV packs instead of BESS.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#58

Post by bluGill »

Aboutplants wrote: post #19
himata4113 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 10x density is possible without getting into nuclear, at least not with the chemistries we know of today, everything at a certain point becomes an explosive. Speaking of nuclear, getting tons of the material that powers mars rovers and putting them in every home would generate enough power for decades... At the cost of being able to build a nuclear bomb in a garage.

The next revolution will be small scale generation. Fuel cells, extremely efficient cheap solar, even smaller modular reactors, etc. I live in western Pennsylvania and have both natural gas and electric service, a roof and 1/3 acre of land to utilize. I would love to get rid of at least one of my utility bills and I’m becoming more interested in decoupling from the electric grid than natural gas service. I dream of a…

With modern heat pumps and induction stoves getting off of natural gas is fairly easy for most people and saves money in the long run. Meanwhile the grid is switching to renewables so getting off gas is your best investment. You can get of electric too, but on your 1/3rd acre that probably means significant lifestyle compromises - I will be impressed if you are willing to live with them.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#59

Post by gabrielhidasy »

mb7733 wrote: post #28
thelastgallon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, electricity should be the only abstraction layer to deliver energy to end user. We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants and also continuously switch out dirtier fuels with clean energy. For example, no need to build natural gas infrastructure to every home. Use induction stoves (or electric coil -- already 67% of homes). Heat pump water heater instead of gas. And heat pump for HV…

> We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants This isn't true at all for natural gas. Burning it for heat in the home is much more efficient than burning it in a plant, converting it to electricity, transferring that electricity, then turning that electricity into heat.

Depends, if you are turning that electricity into heat using a heat-pump you might win on most situations (maybe lose if the weather is really cold outside, unless you add geothermal loops, but then its a lot more expensive to make)

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#60

Post by lightedman »

vikramkr wrote: post #36
thechao wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gasoline has 10x the energy (MJ/Kg) than TNT, but it's not a "bomb". Being a "bomb" is about energy release rate . A battery is still controlled by its chemistry.

Liquid gasoline does not have anywhere near the energy of TNT, or even a battery for that matter. It contains basically zero releasable energy. It needs oxygen or another oxidizer to react with to actually release any energy. TNT and batteries' energy density calculations include the oxidizer and the oxidizer is in close proximity to the fuel (molecularly so in the case of TNT). If you 10x the "energy content" of gas…

"Liquid gasoline does not have anywhere near the energy of TNT,"

Energy density of gasoline is approximately 44 to 45 megajoules per kilogram.

Energy density of TNT is approximately 4.184 megajoules per kilogram.

Post reply on HN