IBM's Super Battery

[Bret Cahill]

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Only one thing is 100% certain:

You'll never accomplish anything if you don't try it.

It's easy to tell from your responses you never accomplished anything.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

"demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the
planned production increases in the next decade"

"realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be
sufficient
for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market
requirements"

The article is very biased, even if we had a few milions of tonns of
economically extractable mineral, we have enough Li to build billions
of
plugins like GM' s Volt, the material being easily reusable/recyclable
at
the end of the life

Remember that the author focused on currently proven reserves and
realistic assumptions about production rates.
So I did not see that it is 'biased'.

An extra "few million ton" of high-grade Lithium from current mining is
simply not so easy to come by (if possible at all).
It may not be possible without extraction of Lithium from the oceans,
which is a very expensive process at this time.

Here is another quote :

"If all future Li2CO3 production increases are purified into battery
grade
material, it will still only be sufficient in the most optimum scenario
for at most 4 to 8 million GM Volt class vehicles worldwide per annum
by
2015 - 2020"

Where does this figure come from? For my knowledge, Volt has a 16 kWh
cell,
with a lithium need of only ~ 50 gr per kWh,

Tahil uses 0.3 kg/kWh for lithium-ion battery technologies.
It's in his first paper  I did see that number before for other actual
batteries.

It's irrelevant, even with 13 milions tonns of world reserve (USGS
estimate), of which 0,75 alone in the US, there is enough lithium for 2,5
billions of plugins like GM's Volt worldwide (there are today ~ 800-900
milions vehicles in the whole world). Considering that many transportation
needs are easily electrificable with trains, trams, metros, etc...it's
thus an excellent (at least, integrative) solution, and even the cost of
lithium seems to weigh very little on the  total cost of a PHEV

I think that you will be right in the end. There is probably enough Lithium
to go around.
Also, if Lithium gets too expensive, then there are various lower-cost
alternatives (NaNiCl etc).

But please consider that you are doing a very rough back-of-the-envelope
calculation
here.

For example, you assume that all lithium reserves will be used for
electrical vehicles,
which is of course not true. In fact, all current Lithium use if for other
markets. Markets that
are also growing.

Second, the 13 million ton Lithium is a "reserve base". That means 'proven'
reserves, but
not necessarily economical  to extract. So the price would have to go UP
(unspecified how much)
for us to actually recover it. The USGS estimates 4 million ton as
'reserves', which means that
these can be recovered for current pricing. That 4 million ton is heavily
harvested already
for a wide range of non PHEV applications, in a growing market.

Third, Tahil makes a reasonable argument that the best Lithium resource
locations (lowest cost)
are already close to 50% depletion. After this, harvesting Lithium will be
increasingly expensive.

Finally : The largest Lithium resources in the world are controlled by
Bolivia.
Not particularly a easy country to deal with....

So, you won't see this until PHEVs become popular, but Lithium prices will
definitely go up in the future.
Maybe go up a lot more than we would assume at first hand. Lithium may be
physically abundant,
but it is certainly NOT economically abundant.

This is, in the end, an only Soviet planner's point of view kind of
discussion....if plugins are clean in the final use, allow enormous energy
savings, the diversification of energy sources, the direct use of clean
sources, clean up biggest cities, and in particular are more economic
*depending* on the future prices of lquid fuels, why don't pursue/develop
it?

Agreed. Still, Tahil makes a reasonable argument that the best Lithium
resource locations (lowest cost)
are already close to 50% depletion. After this, harvesting Lithium will be
increasingly expensive
and definitely will be more environmentally damaging.

Overall, I think it would be good if we would at least develop some
non-Lithium batteries for PHEV applications.
Just in case...

We also need to build a competitive electrified test track for Teslas,
other EVs and maybe PHEVs.

Just in case . . .


Bret Cahill

 

[Nobody]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:59:18 -0700, Greegor wrote:

"The downside is that the nanowire growth process that Cui uses, which feeds
gaseous silicon to a liquid gold catalyst to make the solid electrode, is a
high-temperature (600 to 900 °C) process that could be costly to scale up.
Cui believes that scale-up of the vapor-liquid-solid process is nevertheless
feasible, but he acknowledges that he is also "exploring another approach."

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&id=20000

High temp and lots of GOLD? Yowch.

Does the gold end up being consumed or
incorporated into the resultant product?

It says "gold catalyst", which means that it remains unchanged by the
reaction.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Only one thing is 100% certain:

You'll never accomplish anything if you don't try it.

Following your splendid advice, I tried to make a solid lead ball float
in water.

Did anyone suggest the converse was true?

Yeah, you did with your childish statement: "You'll never accomplish
anything if you don't try it."

Trying the obviously undoable is a waste of time and effort.

That "slot car freeways" won't work in the real world is obvious to
anyone with more than three functioning brain cells.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Greegor]

On Jun 16, 2:07 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:209ea79c-78d6-49f8-af53-9f397da40289@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Wasn't it IBM that came up with carbon nanorods
that are supposed to revolutionize battery capacity?
As anodes they were supposed to multiply the
capacity of batteries by 10x.

I think you refer to the Stanford nanowire anode development by Yi Cui,
professor at Stanford.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

That development applies (and refers) to traditional technology (lithium ion
and such), not the Lithium-air battery proposed here.

Too bad if they can't combine them.

still stands and as far as I know they are exploring commercialization.

One recurring issue with these nano technology is upscaling (and keeping
production cost low).
From another report :
"The downside is that the nanowire growth process that Cui uses, which feeds
gaseous silicon to a liquid gold catalyst to make the solid electrode, is a
high-temperature (600 to 900 °C) process that could be costly to scale up.
Cui believes that scale-up of the vapor-liquid-solid process is nevertheless
feasible, but he acknowledges that he is also "exploring another approach.."

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&id=20000

High temp and lots of GOLD? Yowch.

Does the gold end up being consumed or
incorporated into the resultant product?

What was the enhancement that already
multiplied the capacity of NIMH batteries by 10x?

Don't know this one.
In general, there are many research and development projects ongoing to find
a low-cost, high-capacity battery suitable for the expected PHEV market. You
will see all kind of new developments, one claiming even bolder improvements
that the next.
Which one of these alternatives will make it to commercialization is unclear
at this point.
Just let research and development and production engineering do it's thing.
But one thing is sure : there will be improvements in both energy capacity,
power density and cost reduction.

Rob

The consumer NiMH rechargeable AA's ON STORE SHELVES
have gone through two major changes in the last few years.
1. Eliminated the ""memory"" problem
2. 10x capacity

Those are big changes but I haven't seen any explanation
of how they did it.

 

[Bret Cahill]

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Only one thing is 100% certain:

You'll never accomplish anything if you don't try it.

Following your splendid advice, I tried to make a solid lead ball float
in water.

Did anyone suggest the converse was true?


Bret Cahill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Yevgen Barsukov" <evgenijb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b8c6d36-8d98-4a6b-8395-2a00a79754ee@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 2:23 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Yevgen Barsukov" <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:70eee00b-0339-432b-9142-25aea6f65bbc@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

....



Please cite a URL or information source for this.
What does "mechanical energy" mean when talking about a battery or
a
fuel?

What they are actually doing is working on a proposal to get funding
from DOE to start research into the possibility of developing a
whiz-bang battery.

http://beta.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/

While IBM did not progress that much on Li-air battery,
some other people did. Here is an interesting review:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm

Regards,
Yevgen

Just to be on the same page : Lithium-air batteries so far are 'primary'
batteries, right ?
Is the IBM (proposed) version different in that respect (rechargeable) ?

Rob

This particular review were about primary, but there is some
work on rechargeable version as well, for example here:
http://www.eco-trees.org/rechargeable-lithium-air-battery-offer-10x-storage-capacity/

There is a lot of research on this now, it is the hottest thing
in university research on batteries, but did not quite catch up
with industry (most interest in in batteries with much higher
power capability).


There are significant challenges both for rechargeable and primary
Li/O2:
common problems:
- low rate capability of carbon/catalyst/O2 cathode. Probably will
improve with new catalysts, new carbon electrodes etc

- need to use organic electrolyte between electrodes, but at the same
time it should not penetrate the electrode/air surface to avoid
contact with humidity and avoid evaporation of electrolyte.

Use of gel compositions helps but does not solve the problem. All
solid electrolytes would address the issue, but make power capability
problem even worse.

At the moment it looks like this would be a great solution for
applications that require very low power but large energy.

I read a lot more about lithium-air, and indeed the power density seems to
be a major hurdle.
Not just because it is currently much lower than existing lithium-ion
technologies, but also
because with increased energy density comes a requirement of increased power
density.

Here is the issue :

Assume that a successfull PHEV battery would need to be able to store 15 kWh
energy (for a 40 mile range).
Even with a 1000 Wh/kg capacity (far below theoretical) of a practical
rechargeable lithium-air battery, this means the battery would have a mass
of 15 kg.
That's beautiful, but look at the power requirements :

At peak power, a PHEV or EV battery would need at least 50 hp, or 33kW or
so, even if there are supercapacitors to compensate for peak-power vehicle
requirements. With only 15 kg battery on-board, that means a power capacity
of 2200 W/kg.
That is collossal, and probably far beyond the reach of lithium-air, even in
the long run.

I wonder if the power density limitation of lithium-air is inherent to
having a 'gas' at the cathode (and even one that is diluted to 20%) rather
than a liquid or solid. After all, cathode effective surface is already a
big issue for lithium cells, and these are barely making it to 50 W/kg. Any
thoughts about this ?

Biggest issue is that such applications typically require longevity
of 5-10 years, which is very unlikely due to exposure to air resulting
in Li-corrosion and high self-discharge.

May be able to reduce that with a good O2 filter.

So the biggest strengh (high capacity) can not be taken advantage
of unless power capability will improve, as "stand-by" applications
are out of question. That probably explains the reluctance in the
industry.

Agreed. But agreed in square : see story above.

If however break-through in power capability can be achieved,
watch out for this chemistry. This is really an area where nano-
technology can make a big difference. So far preliminary research is
focusing on "what is the best metal to use" in organic electrolyte
cell O2 cathode. In water based cell Pt, silver etc were popular, but
in it turns out that in organic electrolytes Mn is a king, followed by
Co, etc. See for example
http://www.electrochem.org/dl/ma/206/pdfs/0496.pdf

But next step is to try fancy nano-structured catalyst particles,
deposited on large surface carbon, it we might get to decent power
rates enough for example to power a watch or a TV remote.

Cute.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Roy Lewallen]

How well do these things work when sucking in the exhaust fumes from
gasoline and diesel engines? Downwind from a refinery? At the sea side?

Roy Lewallen

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

On Jun 23, 12:34 am, Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> wrote:

How well do these things work when sucking in the exhaust fumes from
gasoline and diesel engines? Downwind from a refinery? At the sea side?

Roy Lewallen

Presently Li/air is targeting much more benign environments,
similar to existing Metal/air batteries. For example Zn/air most
commonly used in hearing aids - it needs large energy density
but low power. Low power capability air cathodes does not
allow anything close to EV applications.

If power problem were solved, than environment would become a big
issue. I suspect air would have to be filtered and conditioned
for humidity like it is done for EV-type fuel cell prototypes.
As second line of defense would come the membrane separating the
cathode from air.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Poutnik]

Rob Dekker's previous post was like this :

May be able to reduce that with a good O2 filter.

and, in fact, filter of N2 too.

As chemists know, lithium in curiosity
reacts preferably with air nitrogen,
creating a black layer of lithium nitride Li3N.

--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

On Jun 23, 11:55 pm, Poutnik <poutnikletspamisoutofa...@atlas.cz>
wrote:

Rob Dekker's previous post was like this :



May be able to reduce that with a good O2 filter.

and, in fact, filter of N2 too.

As chemists know, lithium in curiosity
reacts preferably with air nitrogen,
creating a black layer of lithium nitride Li3N.

--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.

There is no direct contact between Li-anode and air, as only
cathode is exposed to air.

We can think about a sandwitch:

Li (or graphite intercalate) / Li+ conducting electrolyte (can be
solid) / separator / cathode (Li2O+carbon+catalyst) / air

....where everything on the left side until cathode is
manufactured and maintained in strictly air and water-free
environment.

However cathode will have to be exposed to air continuously.
And due to overall reaction scheme, so will be Li2O.

It is aggressive enough to react irreversibly with anything from
water to CO2, to virtual any polar organic molecule. N2 however is one
of the rare gases it will ignore.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Poutnik]

Yevgen Barsukov's previous post was like this :

I accidentaly delete your post, so replying to this:

Nitrogen is inert gas at most circumstances.
But lithium ix exception,
reacting with nitrogen easily at ambient temperature,
as the only alkaline metal.

so does magnesium at high temperature,
burning to mixture of magnesium oxide and nitride.

--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.

 

In sci.physics Autymn D. C. <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Jun 20, 10:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:



That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Only one thing is 100% certain:

You'll never accomplish anything if you don't try it.

Following your splendid advice, I tried to make a solid lead ball float
in water.

Never heard of surface tension...

2 cm lead ball; stuff that up your surface tension.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Autymn D. C.]

On Jun 20, 10:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:



That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Only one thing is 100% certain:

You'll never accomplish anything if you don't try it.

Following your splendid advice, I tried to make a solid lead ball float
in water.

Never heard of surface tension...

When that didn't work, I tried flapping my arms so I could fly.

Gee, no matter how much I wanted those things to work or how hard I tried,
they wouldn't.

 

[Autymn D. C.]

On Jun 20, 2:46 pm, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Does the gold end up being consumed or
incorporated into the resultant product?

It says "gold catalyst", which means that it remains unchanged by the
reaction.

ocsýmňrňn--the catalýst latches on a reagend, rechanges, then
dechanges.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jun 14, 9:39 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

newsan.2009.06.14.05.37.21.359000@nowhere.com...

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:08:14 -0700, George Herold wrote:

Nice list,  you might add TNT at 9.5,

TNT's energy density of 4.2MJ/kg is less than a tenth of that of petrol,
diesel or kerosene (all around 45MJ/kg).

Yes, TNT's claim to fame is it's rapid explosive reaction not it's energy
density. Chemical explosives are NOT particularly energy dense compared to
common fuels. People confuse energy density with the ability to detonate
into volumes of gas very rapidly; i,e, explode. They aren't the same thing.

Well, not everybody does. Since that's why the people who actually
understand
the issues work on Self-Replicating Machines, rather than with
Quantum-Chemistry
idiots from GM

And work on GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, SGML, XML, Electronic
Books,
All-In-One Printers, USB, Distributed Processing Software,
Holograms,
Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Light Sticks, Compact Flourescent
Lighting,
Pv Cell Energy, Flat Screen Software Debuggers, Fiber Optics Data
Lines, PGP,
Home Broadband, On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, On-Line
Shopping, Blue Ray,
HDTV, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, UAVs, AAVs,
Cruise Missiles,
Drones, Phalanx, Biodiesel, and Self-Assembling Robots,rather than
with A.I. Cranks from
IBM and AT&T.

 

[T. Keating]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:05:18 +0200, pom <pom@orange.fr> wrote:

T. Keating a écrit :

"Lithium in Abundance"

"Open Access Article Originally Published: April 15, 2008"

"As to the issue of American lithium resources, Evans pointed out that
a single geothermal well in southern California can produce enough
lithium to meet all of the world's current demand for lithium."

":He estimates it at 28.4 million tonnes of lithium, which is
equivalent to 150 million tonnes of lithium carbonate. Current world
demand is 16,000 tonnes."

@5kWh per kg of battery weight. One needs less than 10 kg of lithium
per EV, which can easily be recycled when the vehicle is junked.

1000 / 10 * 2.84e+7 tonns == 2.84 billion EVs.

So, what do you do to get the Li from the carbonate (the IBM cell uses Li)?
Anyway, you will set free carbon and if you dont manage this correctly,
you will end up with still more Co2...???
pom

What are you concerned about??

Releasing 3 million tonns of CO2 per year separating Lithium metal
from a carbonate?? (150 Million tonns of Li2Co3 mined over 50+
years..).

Verses mankind's oil based 10+ billion tonns/yr CO2 emissions !!!!

That's a no brainier ... I'll take the low road..

I suspect the ship building industry emits off ten+ times that
amount, (3M tonn/Yr CO2), constructing the various Super tankers used
to carry the crude to the refineries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories

The sooner we achieve a sustainable equilibrium (energy, water,
minerals, population) with what's left of our environment the better.

 

[Greegor]

Wasn't it IBM that came up with carbon nanorods
that are supposed to revolutionize battery capacity?
As anodes they were supposed to multiply the
capacity of batteries by 10x.

What was the enhancement that already
multiplied the capacity of NIMH batteries by 10x?

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in message news:AUnZl.45633$Ux.11330@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9ijfg6-ge3.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:anmdg6-deo.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, well there still is the inconvienient reality that there isn't
that much recoverable lithium on the planet.

That which does exist is mostly in South America and China, so the net
effect of making all cars electric would be to swap foreign oil imports
for foreign lithium imports until it runs out.

There is no such thing as bio-lithium.

Oil is not a renewable fuel, while lithium is a reusable-recyclable
material, it's not a fair comparison (besides the fact that very likely
we
have enough lithium to build even billions electric vehicles wortdwide)

"demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the
planned production increases in the next decade"

"realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be sufficient
for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market
requirements"


The article is very biased, even if we had a few milions of tonns of economically extractable mineral, we have enough Li to build
billions of plugins like GM' s Volt, the material being easily reusable/recyclable at the end of the life

Remember that the author focused on currently proven reserves and realistic assumptions about production rates.
So I did not see that it is 'biased'.

An extra "few million ton" of high-grade Lithium from current mining is simply not so easy to come by (if possible at all).
It may not be possible without extraction of Lithium from the oceans, which is a very expensive process at this time.

Here is another quote :

"If all future Li2CO3 production increases are purified into battery grade material, it will still only be sufficient in the most
optimum scenario for at most 4 to 8 million GM Volt class vehicles worldwide per annum by 2015 - 2020"

That's still a lot of vehicles, but no more than 10% world wide vehicle demand.
And remember that a major part of the problem is Lithium rate of production.

"Existing demand for Li2CO3 for portable electronic batteries is streching the ability of the Lithium producers to keep pace even
before the first automotive batteries 100 times as large as a laptop computer battery reach the market".

"mass production of lithium carbonate is not environmentally sound, it
will
cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected
and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the 'Green
Car'"


Perhaps that' s true, but obviuosly this is easily applicable for any intensive oil or coal production activity, with the
difference that oil and coal pollutes in EVERY step of their minning, extraction, production, refinement and in particular
combustion

 

[Bret Cahill]

If there are too many false announcements that delay something this
might work, it's not a good thing.


Bret Cahill

Wasn't it IBM that came up with carbon nanorods
that are supposed to revolutionize battery capacity?
As anodes they were supposed to multiply the
capacity of batteries by 10x.

What was the enhancement that already
multiplied the capacity of NIMH batteries by 10x?