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

71–80 of 331 posts

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

#71

Post by interstice »

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…

Some heavier elements have hilariously high energy densities and aren't bombs (on their own), but the catch is the energy release is a trickle. Point is it's not an automatic follow that high density = high discharge.

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

#72

Post by piquadrat »

superxpro12 wrote: post #62
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.

Tell that to my polestar 2 pls. and then come back again in the winter when it drops another 30% due to the battery heater energizing

Your Polestar 2 battery is based on battery technology that is 5+ years old. Right now you can buy a BYD car in China that charges at up to 1500kW - close to 10x the peak charging rate of a Polestar 2.

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

#73

Post by vitally3643 »

lightedman wrote: post #56
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.

[flagged]

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

#74

Post by ranger_danger »

csours wrote: post #68
vikramkr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's an interesting discussion, because if you assume access to atmospheric oxygen, gasoline is MUCH more energy dense. TNT.....: 4 kJ/gram and 7 MJ/liter Gasoline: 43 kJ/gram and 33 MJ/liter

That's a huge assumption that won't always be the case though. A gasoline tank with a small hole in it is a lot safer than a liquid-electrolyte battery with a hole in it.

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

#75

Post by csours »

ranger_danger wrote: post #74
csours wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting discussion, because if you assume access to atmospheric oxygen, gasoline is MUCH more energy dense. TNT.....: 4 kJ/gram and 7 MJ/liter Gasoline: 43 kJ/gram and 33 MJ/liter

That's a huge assumption that won't always be the case though. A gasoline tank with a small hole in it is a lot safer than a liquid-electrolyte battery with a hole in it.

Yes, that's what makes it interesting.

Interesting discussions about energetics are best had from a distance.

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

#76

Post by epistasis »

iso1631 wrote: post #47
laxisOp wrote: post #6

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

Not all batteries need to be mobile. A 1 GWh grid scale battery takes up about 4 hectares at the moment. The UKs total energy use is about 2,000GWh a day. It would need to use 240,000 hectares to store all energy requirements (eletric, transport, heating etc) for a whole month. Even in extreme cold conditions it would last a couple of weeks. That would be about 1% of land use.

Storing a month of energy use doesn't make any sense when it comes to renewable grids. Since you don't have to mine/extract and transport an inventory, far far less storage is required.

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

#77

Post by bracketfocus »

vitally3643 wrote: post #73
lightedman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

[flagged]

To be fair, the poster said “holy grail” which implies perfection.

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

#78

Post by RetroTechie »

tflinton wrote: post #69
clickety_clack wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

High density batteries allows us to have dramatically cheaper electricity. Think of it like this, what happens when electricity is 1/10th the cost? Beyond what others have pointed out (electric airplanes, cars that drive thousands of miles), costs for everything would drop as energy is a core driver of it in every good you consume. If you can pull energy where it's very cheaply available and store/transport it anywhe…

Batteries are not power sources, but storage. The energy still has to come from somewhere, and power generation won't magically become 10x cheaper overnight. No matter how cheap battery storage becomes.

But it IS crucial for removing bottlenecks & replace fossil fuels.

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

#79

Post by saltcured »

csours wrote: post #68
vikramkr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's an interesting discussion, because if you assume access to atmospheric oxygen, gasoline is MUCH more energy dense. TNT.....: 4 kJ/gram and 7 MJ/liter Gasoline: 43 kJ/gram and 33 MJ/liter

The previous point is fair though. What is the energy density of gasoline in a stoichiometric mixture with its oxidizer and not already detonated? That's where TNT beats it by a long shot. The mixture with any chance of being stored would be some relatively low pressure gas.

Edit: Or, a fair closed-system comparison to a battery would need to include a liquid oxygen tank or similar so you have the two components stored but can control the delivery...

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

#80

Post by vitally3643 »

lightedman wrote: post #60
vikramkr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN