[dead]
Regarding affordability, if this battery can achieve 30,000 recharge cycles vs 500 for li-ion, then relatively small differences in materials cost will be irrelevant, no? Particularly if used for grid storage.
Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#22Can anyone comment on the design of the cell, specifically why it is long and thin, which would work against the square cube law. Is a large surface to volume chosen for thermal reasons?
As I understand it, something like a lead-acid battery using volumes of acid and volumes of reactants so a cube gives them more power with the same surface area. NiMH batteries use boundaries between states instead of acid. Therefore, you want long thin batteries of alternating materials to make them more efficient.
Or, to put it a different way, NiMH batteries require a large interior surface area, and so the square/cube law forces them to look longer and thinner as they get larger.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#23The edited headline (Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA) is incorrect; the technology is from NASA, but the batteries are from EnerVenue.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#24The edited headline (Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA) is incorrect; the technology is from NASA, but the batteries are from EnerVenue.
[deleted]
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Seems reasonable given, you know, they are also delivering our food, fuel and basically anything else you need or want. They also pay a considerable amount of road tax and taxes on fuel which would make most people in the US plot a coup.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#26Earlier 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.
Brakes? Surely not, EVs hardly use them.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Seems reasonable given, you know, they are also delivering our food, fuel and basically anything else you need or want. They also pay a considerable amount of road tax and taxes on fuel which would make most people in the US plot a coup.
Ah, yes, because trains clearly could not do this and never did in the past. There is no alternative.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#28This 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…
> But what about the hydrogen?
Doesn’t it say the hydrogen is vented as H2O?
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems reasonable given, you know, they are also delivering our food, fuel and basically anything else you need or want. They also pay a considerable amount of road tax and taxes on fuel which would make most people in the US plot a coup.
Ah, yes, because trains clearly could not do this and never did in the past. There is no alternative.
Trains have never delivered to individual retail stores, half finished housing estates or petrol stations. Perhaps reserve your sarcasm for when you aren't saying something stupid.
Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA
#30Earlier 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…
There already are battery electric trucks capable of carrying hundreds of tonnes of rocks. Australia actually has road trains north of 200 tonnes that are battery electric. The battery weight is mostly not an issue.
Weight savings are nice of course. But so is not burning diesel by the hundreds of gallons. The trade off is between a few percent extra weight or lots of dollars spent on fuel.