11–20 of 31 posts
Those batteries have a lower energy density and power than the current li-ions, so you won't be seeing them in a phone, laptop or a car. At the same time they are significantly cheaper to make and durable, which might make them a good solution for home energy storage - paired with panels for example.
I'm skeptical myself based on the number/style of claims they make, but I can't see any details.
Those batteries have a lower energy density and power than the current li-ions, so you won't be seeing them in a phone, laptop or a car. At the same time they are significantly cheaper to make and durable, which might make them a good solution for home energy storage - paired with panels for example.
Where does the article discuss the energy density? I'm skeptical myself based on the number/style of claims they make, but I can't see any details.
"Our battery produces about half the voltage of a typical lithium battery," he said. "But improving the cathode material could eventually increase the voltage and energy density. Otherwise, our battery has everything else you'd dream that a battery should have. [..]Those batteries have a lower energy density and power than the current li-ions, so you won't be seeing them in a phone, laptop or a car. At the same time they are significantly cheaper to make and durable, which might make them a good solution for home energy storage - paired with panels for example.
Those batteries have a lower energy density and power than the current li-ions, so you won't be seeing them in a phone, laptop or a car. At the same time they are significantly cheaper to make and durable, which might make them a good solution for home energy storage - paired with panels for example.
Even at only half the power I'd want one in my phone. It's easy enough to charge a phone if it only take a few minutes. It's the hours that it currently takes that makes frequent charging intolerable.
> "Our rechargeable aluminum battery generates about two volts of electricity." Now that's really good news. Stick it together with a 1.5V regulator inside an AA cell and never have problems with devices not accepting the 1.2V of a typical NiMH cell.
NiMH also drop as they are discharged, but the curve flattens out for much of its range. A good charger should charge an NiMH to around 1.4 V. After about 10% discharge, it will be down to 1.3 V. By 30% discharge it will be around 1.25 V, and it stays around that until around 80% discharge. From 80% to 90% it will drop to around 1.2 V, and from there it will drop to around 1.0 V at around 99% discharge, and then it falls off a cliff.
Devices designed for alkaline batteries are designed to run fine on anything from around 1.0 or 1.1 V through 1.5 V, and so should be fine with NiMH, except if they have a battery remaining indicator that is hard wired to assume alkaline it won't give accurate estimates for NiMH because of the different shapes of the discharge curves.
Likely as a direct response to the hype of this article (a few thousand comments in the related reddit thread), Elon tweeted: Battery "breakthroughs" need to state power *and* energy density (not the same thing), plus how long they last. They usually fail on energy. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/585185843649716225
Which is not to slam the investigation into new (or rediscovered) battery chemistries. Just that the article goes out of its way to paint this as a huge break through, which it really isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does the article discuss the energy density? I'm skeptical myself based on the number/style of claims they make, but I can't see any details.
"Our battery produces about half the voltage of a typical lithium battery," he said. "But improving the cathode material could eventually increase the voltage and energy density. Otherwise, our battery has everything else you'd dream that a battery should have. [..]
Likely as a direct response to the hype of this article (a few thousand comments in the related reddit thread), Elon tweeted: Battery "breakthroughs" need to state power *and* energy density (not the same thing), plus how long they last. They usually fail on energy. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/585185843649716225
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even at only half the power I'd want one in my phone. It's easy enough to charge a phone if it only take a few minutes. It's the hours that it currently takes that makes frequent charging intolerable.
There are a bunch of options for that with li-ions too. For example Qualcomm claims that 3300mAh battery gets to 60% in 30 minutes with Quick Charge 2.0. Granted, that's not 'a couple of minutes', but still quite amazing.
Those batteries have a lower energy density and power than the current li-ions, so you won't be seeing them in a phone, laptop or a car. At the same time they are significantly cheaper to make and durable, which might make them a good solution for home energy storage - paired with panels for example.
Where does the article discuss the energy density? I'm skeptical myself based on the number/style of claims they make, but I can't see any details.
"The aluminum-ion cell isn't perfect (yet) as it can only produce about 2 volts, far less than the 3.6V that lithium-ion an muster. Plus aluminum cells only carry 40 watts of electricity per kilogram compared to lithium's 100 to 206 W/kg power density."
http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/06/stanfords-battery-charges...
Sidenote: I suspect that passage means W-hours per Kg vs. W per Kg because typical Li-ion does have an energy density in the 100-200 W-h/kg range. See the chart in this Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-bet...