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

Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#71

Post by aidenn0 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #42

It's strange they didn't compare these batteries to lithium titanate, which is the other chemistry that can do 30,000 cycles and is something anyone can buy right now. They have extremely high charging C rates and sit somewhere between normal batteries and full capacitors in what they can do. They end up being about 50% more than LiFePo batteries in cost.

The numbers thrown out for this (~$60/kWh) are comparable in price to what LFP might cost in the next couple of years, the C rates for these are much lower (C/2).

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#72

Post by scott_h »

fransje26 wrote: post #10
scott_h wrote: post #2

[dead]

> the battery catalyst is a Nickel-Molybdenum-Cobalt alloy, which seems like a pretty rare, expensive component. So you didn't read the article? The piece states: "Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs $20/kg." For a catalyst, that doesn't sound too expensive. > Their published research cites a $~83/kWh cost for just the materials (that's not very cheap)…

> So you didn't read the article?

Part of my critique is that the numbers cited in the article don't relate to their meaning. Measuring catalyst by kg instead of kWh is stupid, so $20/kg means jack when you look at what that actually means for a battery. Sounds hard to believe that there is an inexpensive anything made of only things like nickel-molybdenum-cobalt.

> That's all very nice, but that number is from a paper from 2018.

Hey I agree with you, but that's what the article cited. Maybe they shouldn't be citing a 2018 article. And I bet that $83/kWh was absolutely a best case estimate without manufacturing costs, nor accounting for scaling costs. Thats why I added the link for context.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#73

Post by atoav »

User23 wrote: post #52
atoav wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

I do, because I like stores being stocked and deliveries arriving. And so do a supermajority of my fellow citizens.

Ah and you think in Europe where we have less heavy trucks our stocks and goods don't arrive?

Why haven't you told me earlier? I wouldn't have had to bother to walk to the supermarket across the street.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#74

Post by VBprogrammer »

atoav wrote: post #73
User23 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, because I like stores being stocked and deliveries arriving. And so do a supermajority of my fellow citizens.

Ah and you think in Europe where we have less heavy trucks our stocks and goods don't arrive? Why haven't you told me earlier? I wouldn't have had to bother to walk to the supermarket across the street.

In Europe the standard gross weight for a truck is 44t (97,000lbs).

By contrast on American interstates the standard is 80,000lbs.

Your sarcasm is unwarranted and just makes you look stupid when you are completely wrong.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#75

Post by panick21_ »

aidenn0 wrote: post #69
hmottestad wrote: post #58

> So far, EnerVenue has been operating a pilot production line that can manufacture 100 megawatt-hours’ worth of batteries per year—and they’ve deployed small-scale test systems. But, says Heinemann, the company already has over 7 GWh, or about 400 million dollars’ worth of purchase orders... We should soon see if this is a viable business then.

> 7 GWh, or about 400 million dollars This implies a bulk cost of about $57/kWh which is slightly cheaper than present day LFP (the primary competitor for grid-scale battery storage). IMO, it needs to be no more expensive than LFP, because LFP cells can be spec'd for ~8 years and it's hard to get people to invest on timescales longer than ~10 years.

There are many grid battery technologies common on right now, liquid metal battery, IronAir battery and many more. And all of those have lots of 'orders' that they brag about.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#76

Post by panick21_ »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #3
scott_h wrote: post #2

[dead]

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…

> Higher energy densities are mainly nice for things like high end sports cars where the form factor prevents cramming in more battery. But less so in freight trucks. Saving a few hundred kilos of mass on a truck that pulls 80 tonne is just not that valuable.

Disagree. Car and truck makers try to optimize for grams and saving a kg of production vehicle is considered a huge engineering victory. Saving 100s of kg is a gigantic deal.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#77

Post by panick21_ »

bumby wrote: post #63
atoav wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

> Given that road wear grows to the fourth power Where can we find more on this? I'm not doubting, but I can't think of why this is. It's pretty rare to find much in the physical world that uses the 4th power (Hagen–Poiseuille equation relating fluid pressure differential in a pipe - or artery - is one of the few that comes to mind)

I don't remember where but this is pretty common knowlage in urban design and transport engineering. Any textbook on road engineering should have that stuff.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#78

Post by bumby »

panick21_ wrote: post #77
bumby wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that road wear grows to the fourth power Where can we find more on this? I'm not doubting, but I can't think of why this is. It's pretty rare to find much in the physical world that uses the 4th power (Hagen–Poiseuille equation relating fluid pressure differential in a pipe - or artery - is one of the few that comes to mind)

I don't remember where but this is pretty common knowlage in urban design and transport engineering. Any textbook on road engineering should have that stuff.

From what I could find, the road damage 4th power relationship is empirically derived (in contrast to something like Hagen–Poiseuille) and the relationship is disputed by experts.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#79

Post by bumby »

panick21_ wrote: post #76
jillesvangurp wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

> Higher energy densities are mainly nice for things like high end sports cars where the form factor prevents cramming in more battery. But less so in freight trucks. Saving a few hundred kilos of mass on a truck that pulls 80 tonne is just not that valuable. Disagree. Car and truck makers try to optimize for grams and saving a kg of production vehicle is considered a huge engineering victory. Saving 100s of kg is a…

This is true. Just look at Fords decision to go with an aluminum bed on their F150. Going with a material that is more expensive and less durable on their best selling vehicle that’s also a work truck is a big deal, but worth it given the weight savings.

Re: Nickel Hydrogen Batteries by NASA

#80

Post by bumby »

marcosdumay wrote: post #56
atoav wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

> fourth power (!) with vehicle weight Divided by tire. That's why heavy trucks have so many of them. Most countries regulate the weight by tire, so that this actually doesn't change between trucks.

Regulated by tire or by axle? In the US, it’s generally the latter.
Post reply on HN