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

181–190 of 331 posts

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

#181

Post by laxpri »

toss1 wrote: post #54
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 yiel…

If we stop considering ICE , its still a whole new world would created by smaller batteries .

could be some bad examples(right now in mind),correct me . but smart ring , BCI systems is not possible with oil.

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

#182

Post by jtwaleson »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #146
piquadrat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m an automotive EE… I find particular interest when someone mentions BYD as what “works” in electric vehicles. Wild fucking west right there.

*west -> east? ;)

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

#183

Post by moffkalast »

Razengan wrote: post #180
moffkalast wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aliens somewhere, presumably.

Isn't their tech powered by portable black holes?

The regulatory approval for those is just too expensive in practice. I mean you blow up one star due to cost cutting and nobody trusts the tech ever again...

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

#184

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

kazinator wrote: post #170
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EVs should be built with 100 - 150 mile range. [..] if they need to go longer, US has a robust rental car industry As an EV owner myself, no. Absolutely not. The reason is simple: The mere existence of low-range EVs hurts overall EV adoption , because people aren't going to rent a car just for a road trip. You're talking about adding $100+ per day on what's supposed to be a cheaper method of travel compared to flyi…

Not only that, but with a longer range, you have more flexibility in planning recharging. It may take more time to top up from 50 km left to 500 km, but you have more flexibility about when to do it. Something that needs a daily charge is going to be interfering with your schedule.

Exactly.

Having only a 100 mile range is plenty for your daily driving, but if you can't charge at home, it becomes very disruptive.

Short range EVs typically only support J-1772 which only charges at up to 19.2 kW, and many cars only even support 11.5 kW. You'll be charging for at least an hour.

At least with a 300 mile range, most people could get away with charging for just 20 minutes/week.

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

#185

Post by heckintime »

hannasanarion wrote: post #55
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 e…

Not all drones are one way

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

#186

Post by CamperBob2 »

jimt1234 wrote: post #140
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.

> Gasoline ... it's not a "bomb" My teen years would beg to differ, when some neighborhood friends and I decided to experiment with gas and bleach. The neighborhood residents, fire department and local police also had an opinion, too. (We all got into BIG trouble. Definitely one of the dumber things I did as a teen.)

Bleach? What does that do?

My high-school crowd stopped just short of building a multistage FAE device. I left early for college and everybody else was short of cash, and that was the end of our neighborhood R&D program. All pre-9/11, needless to say. It's a lot less fun when the possible punishment goes from detention at lunch to waterboarding in Gitmo.

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

#187

Post by PunchyHamster »

saltcured wrote: post #79
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

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 stor…

> 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.

eeeh that still doesn't matter really. Gasoline is safe(r) because it needs conditions to explode (spreading into area then ignition), instead of just detonator. Diesel even more so

A damaged gasoline tank that's near empty might explode but more likely it will just leak and start burning, and probably at that moment be still extinguishable. Explosives, well, you won't have time to blink.

Batteries ? Zero chance to extinguish, gonna let it burn thru. THAT is the problem

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

#188

Post by PunchyHamster »

swiftcoder wrote: post #132
not_the_fda wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it can't. To combust it needs ~ 500F. If you left it out uncovered in the open and allowed the it to vaporize with a spark nearby, it might explode, but thats not spontaneous combustion. Gasoline sitting in a sealed container wont spontaneously combust.

Didn't everyone have one of those old mechanic friends who liked to put the cigarette out in the can of gas to scare the tourists?

...it was probably diesel not gasoline

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

#189

Post by PunchyHamster »

epistasis wrote: post #76
iso1631 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you don't want industry going down coz there has been bad weather for few days in a row. And other alternative is burning gas.

If we want to get out of fossils, we will have to store for longer. Or built a ton of atomics

Post reply on HN