EV Range Breakthrough as New Aluminum-Ion Battery Charges 60 Times Faster to Lit(forbes.com)
forbes.com
EV Range Breakthrough as New Aluminum-Ion Battery Charges 60 Times Faster to Lit
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-range-breakthrough-as-new-aluminum-ion-battery-charges-60-times-faster-than-lithium-ion/
115 comments
This battery doesn't check any of those boxes. You need more boxes.
Is the lack of check-marks here your suggestion that this is actually something of significance? That was my (cautious) reading.
Assuming that it doesn't fall foul of the last one "your claims are lies" it seems to be a step change in performance that's in early production and has a reasonable path to actual production.
Assuming that it doesn't fall foul of the last one "your claims are lies" it seems to be a step change in performance that's in early production and has a reasonable path to actual production.
The lack of check-marks is because it's a blank form to be printed out and filled, before handing it over to sensationalist news websites.
I remember this meme format from Slashdot comments back in 2002ish for anti-spam solutions - its not meant to be printed out - the OP simply forgot to fill the relevant checkboxes for this particular news story.
It goes back all the way to 90's Usenet, as a memetic format for commonplace rebuttals. Possibly one of the most longstanding pieces of Net culture!
Thank you for the correction, I didn’t know it was that old
[deleted]
Curious if the Lithium-ion technology would have passed your checklist on day one?
Any claims of better than 2x should be viewed through a hugely skeptical eye.
1) 2x would take an electric car from 300 miles range to 600 miles range. That is a pretty radical improvement in energy density that possibly exceeds even hydrocarbons.
2) Automotive is a terribly unforgiving environment for batteries. Heat, cold, and vibration are all the worst. Oh, and don't do something silly like emit toxic fumes or explode when someone ruptures your containment with a 30mph crash.
1) 2x would take an electric car from 300 miles range to 600 miles range. That is a pretty radical improvement in energy density that possibly exceeds even hydrocarbons.
2) Automotive is a terribly unforgiving environment for batteries. Heat, cold, and vibration are all the worst. Oh, and don't do something silly like emit toxic fumes or explode when someone ruptures your containment with a 30mph crash.
It's not "day one" for fantastical claims of 10x+ of battery improvement on some dimension that only works in a lab.
They claim to be bringing this to market in under a year, though, so that is a deviation from the usual battery story we read. Whether or not it's true... shrug ask me in a year.
They claim to be bringing this to market in under a year, though, so that is a deviation from the usual battery story we read. Whether or not it's true... shrug ask me in a year.
for the last 3 years I've been reading of these breakthroughs. They are not just 2x Lithium Ion, they are usually 10X!! or in this case 60X creating an "EV Range Breakthrough" to quote the title exactly.
You have a 60x EV Range breakthrough - and you are still a small company not snapped up by some monster. How in the HELL is that possible. 60x range is 20,000 miles for the tesla Model 3. How is this amount of energy even carried safely?
I've become jaded to these announcements. Glad someone is coming out with a checkbox for them.
Note that for EV's COST has become a key driver - 315 miles range is "good enough" if you get to leave your house every morning with a full charge. Hopefully the 60X improvement creating this "range breakthrough" translates into a 60x cost reduction given you can use a much smaller battery for the 315 miles.
You have a 60x EV Range breakthrough - and you are still a small company not snapped up by some monster. How in the HELL is that possible. 60x range is 20,000 miles for the tesla Model 3. How is this amount of energy even carried safely?
I've become jaded to these announcements. Glad someone is coming out with a checkbox for them.
Note that for EV's COST has become a key driver - 315 miles range is "good enough" if you get to leave your house every morning with a full charge. Hopefully the 60X improvement creating this "range breakthrough" translates into a 60x cost reduction given you can use a much smaller battery for the 315 miles.
The article title and within the article clearly state "60x faster charge" which still means a hypothetical 315 miles of range until which point they also claim "60x more battery capacity."
The only 60x in the article was charge time improvement.
It was 3x on capacity, 60x on charging speed. Which, if true would solve the two main problems with electric vehicles.
I was watching an episode of Nova on PBS about "Search for the Super Battery" and it was pretty enlightening. The basic lithium battery can store a lot of energy but due to dendrite formation it can short circuit and fail catastrophically. So they made some modifications to improve its safety while compromising other parameters and we get an lithium ion battery. But scientists are learning how to improve its safety without degrading other properties too much. They play around with different anode and cathode formulas and the separator membranes between them.
So, if you are interested in lithium ion batteries, their problems, and current industry solutions, I can think of no better youtube channel then "the limiting factor".
Here's his video talking about Tesla's new silicon/lithium tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL6xp4fLdFw
Here's his video talking about Tesla's new silicon/lithium tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL6xp4fLdFw
Looks like an interesting video. Thanks for the link.
Even the battery techs that show the most promising (in-lab, no guarantee of ever coming to fruitition) stats like lithium-air only have energy density roughly equal to or a bit lower than fossil fuels. Anything that actually blew that away by such huge would be worth billions if not trillions.
batteries are the oldest tech scams, remember EEStor?
My guess is that these 'breakthroughs' are basically directed towards current leaders in LiIon manufacturing and mostly serve as distraction from going all-in into liion while status quo can be maintained just a little longer.
My guess is that these 'breakthroughs' are basically directed towards current leaders in LiIon manufacturing and mostly serve as distraction from going all-in into liion while status quo can be maintained just a little longer.
> Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
To Whom It May Concern: If human beings took advice like yours, we'd be living in caves. And no doubt the first person who proposed living in a cave heard the same. You are free to say what you like, of course, but try to stay out of the way of the people working. :)
How is something like this found on Hacker News, hosted by Y Combinator in SV?
To Whom It May Concern: If human beings took advice like yours, we'd be living in caves. And no doubt the first person who proposed living in a cave heard the same. You are free to say what you like, of course, but try to stay out of the way of the people working. :)
How is something like this found on Hacker News, hosted by Y Combinator in SV?
How long have you been watching this space? Batteries are hard and many many lab-scale advances don't make it. It's still cool to check them out, but skepticism is definitely warranted.
Naysaying != skepticism.
Naysaying != bad.
Before i take a real look at a flat earth model it has to at least predict solar eclipses and explain seasons. Before i take a look at 'EV Breakthrough' it has to address everything on this list.
Alternatively, a title less grand then 'EV Breakthrough' is also fine.
Before i take a real look at a flat earth model it has to at least predict solar eclipses and explain seasons. Before i take a look at 'EV Breakthrough' it has to address everything on this list.
Alternatively, a title less grand then 'EV Breakthrough' is also fine.
Skepticism is fine, but shouldn't you detail the reasons? (not just all possible reasons)
This is a variant on an old joke about ideas for fighting spam:
https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
To over-explain the joke: we hear a lot of ideas but they never pan out, and here is a simple checklist for all the reasons that they might fail. Check those that apply.
(Ironically, email spam does seem to be a largely solved problem, though it has morphed into a lot of other things.)
https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
To over-explain the joke: we hear a lot of ideas but they never pan out, and here is a simple checklist for all the reasons that they might fail. Check those that apply.
(Ironically, email spam does seem to be a largely solved problem, though it has morphed into a lot of other things.)
yes, I have seen the same list on hacker news before - except people added the specific checkmarks which increased the s/n
+5 Nostalgic
While the research itself sound promising, the article leaves a lot to be desired.
The use of units and their notation is horrendous, almost as if the author doesn't know even the first thing about SI units and their use:
> 197 mAh g−1
> 10 gigaWatt to 50gW plants
I'm sorry, but nonsense like that detracts from the trustworthiness of the content.
The title is also a bit click-baity - so far they're working with coin cells and statements like
> It charges an iPhone coin cell in less than 10 seconds.
are highly misleading. What does that even mean? An iPhone doesn't contain coin cells.
Another irritating statements follows immediately after:
> The new battery cells are claimed to deliver far more energy density than current lithium-ion batteries, without the cooling, heating or rare-earth problems they face.
According to them, their cells achieve 160 Wh/kg. That doesn't add up at all. A mainstream APN 616-0809 Li-Ion battery pack (iPhone 6) has a capacity of 1810 mAh @ 3.8V and weighs ~45.5 g, e.g. ~150 Wh/kg.
So their current cells are no better than current Li-Ion batteries, but only just match them. I mean, heck, a Tesla Powerwall - a fully integrated, plug-and-play unit - comes in at 114 Wh/kg (13.5 kWh @ 114 kg) [0].
If they have a product with unique selling points (no rare earths required, much faster to charge, safer), why make claims that are demonstrably false? Little things like that make the whole announcement sound fishy and I can't tell whether it's the author or the researchers who messed up there.
I mean, seriously, the COTS Panasonic NCR18650B cell has an energy density of 252 Wh/kg [1] so even with cooling/heating elements a battery pack would have a higher energy density (by mass) than their product.
Something just doesn't add up in this piece.
[0] https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/powerwall/Pow...
[1] https://www.batteryjunction.com/panasonic-ncr18650b-3400.htm...
The use of units and their notation is horrendous, almost as if the author doesn't know even the first thing about SI units and their use:
> 197 mAh g−1
> 10 gigaWatt to 50gW plants
I'm sorry, but nonsense like that detracts from the trustworthiness of the content.
The title is also a bit click-baity - so far they're working with coin cells and statements like
> It charges an iPhone coin cell in less than 10 seconds.
are highly misleading. What does that even mean? An iPhone doesn't contain coin cells.
Another irritating statements follows immediately after:
> The new battery cells are claimed to deliver far more energy density than current lithium-ion batteries, without the cooling, heating or rare-earth problems they face.
According to them, their cells achieve 160 Wh/kg. That doesn't add up at all. A mainstream APN 616-0809 Li-Ion battery pack (iPhone 6) has a capacity of 1810 mAh @ 3.8V and weighs ~45.5 g, e.g. ~150 Wh/kg.
So their current cells are no better than current Li-Ion batteries, but only just match them. I mean, heck, a Tesla Powerwall - a fully integrated, plug-and-play unit - comes in at 114 Wh/kg (13.5 kWh @ 114 kg) [0].
If they have a product with unique selling points (no rare earths required, much faster to charge, safer), why make claims that are demonstrably false? Little things like that make the whole announcement sound fishy and I can't tell whether it's the author or the researchers who messed up there.
I mean, seriously, the COTS Panasonic NCR18650B cell has an energy density of 252 Wh/kg [1] so even with cooling/heating elements a battery pack would have a higher energy density (by mass) than their product.
Something just doesn't add up in this piece.
[0] https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/powerwall/Pow...
[1] https://www.batteryjunction.com/panasonic-ncr18650b-3400.htm...
Also, this statement is very strange:
> Testing by peer-reviewed specialist publication Advanced Functional Materials publication concluded the cells had “outstanding high-rate performance (149 mAh g−1 at 5 A g−1), surpassing all previously reported AIB cathode materials”.
Advanced Functional Materials is just a journal. They do not do third-party testing (unless something really has changed in scientific publishing in that last few years). Just because your paper was accepted for publication doesn't mean you can go around claiming your device performance has been validated by outside investigators. The peer-reviewers for journals just look at the data/figures submitted and make a judgement call on if it looks legit/plausible or if it looks fake/wrong. They don't actually get devices from the authors and test them out in their own labs to verify things...
For third party verification you need to pay outside consultants (e.g. Exponent) to test your devices or need to get a national lab like NREL to test things.
> Testing by peer-reviewed specialist publication Advanced Functional Materials publication concluded the cells had “outstanding high-rate performance (149 mAh g−1 at 5 A g−1), surpassing all previously reported AIB cathode materials”.
Advanced Functional Materials is just a journal. They do not do third-party testing (unless something really has changed in scientific publishing in that last few years). Just because your paper was accepted for publication doesn't mean you can go around claiming your device performance has been validated by outside investigators. The peer-reviewers for journals just look at the data/figures submitted and make a judgement call on if it looks legit/plausible or if it looks fake/wrong. They don't actually get devices from the authors and test them out in their own labs to verify things...
For third party verification you need to pay outside consultants (e.g. Exponent) to test your devices or need to get a national lab like NREL to test things.
The use of ampere-hours per gram and derived measurements is extremely common in battery research. For example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14340 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.5b06809 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0014-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14340 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.5b06809 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0014-y
I'm not referring to using Amp-hours - note that I quoted capacities of competing products using the same unit.
What grinds my gears is copy-pasting without understanding the notation. mAh g-1 is not a unit. mA⋅h⋅g<sup>-1</sup> or mA⋅h/g is. I expect a technical article to at least use the correct notation for SI units. If your publishing system is so crappy that it doesn't support middle-dots and proper superscript, use division instead.
The mess seen in the article is the result of mindless copypasta.
Nonsense like "gigaWatts" shouldn't even be possible and causes red squiggly lines even while typing this in a browser; not to mention "gW" (grams times Watts?, Wattgrams?).
If you present technical information and include technical data, use the correct notation. Failing to do so demonstrates that there's no or a very poor editorial process and that the author has no clue what they're even writing about. This doesn't inspire confidence in the actual substance of the article, much like proper grammar and orthography are an essential part of a good essay.
What grinds my gears is copy-pasting without understanding the notation. mAh g-1 is not a unit. mA⋅h⋅g<sup>-1</sup> or mA⋅h/g is. I expect a technical article to at least use the correct notation for SI units. If your publishing system is so crappy that it doesn't support middle-dots and proper superscript, use division instead.
The mess seen in the article is the result of mindless copypasta.
Nonsense like "gigaWatts" shouldn't even be possible and causes red squiggly lines even while typing this in a browser; not to mention "gW" (grams times Watts?, Wattgrams?).
If you present technical information and include technical data, use the correct notation. Failing to do so demonstrates that there's no or a very poor editorial process and that the author has no clue what they're even writing about. This doesn't inspire confidence in the actual substance of the article, much like proper grammar and orthography are an essential part of a good essay.
Yeah, I think the article misleads that these are close to parity with Li batteries not exceeding, if not slightly trailing in density. Other articles on the same batteries with quotes directly from the researchers are more clear about it.
mAh g-1 is very simple to understand. It is common notation to put a -1 exponent to indicate division.
Work to calculate the energy density comparison when that isn't even the point of the article. Everyone can look up the energey density and theoretical of a li-ion battery: 100-265 Wh/kg. There is absolutely no need to calculate anything.
Focus on the substance of the article. 60x faster charging rate as compared to Lithium-ion and make a comment regarding that. Otherwise your comments are as pointless as my reply to it.
Work to calculate the energy density comparison when that isn't even the point of the article. Everyone can look up the energey density and theoretical of a li-ion battery: 100-265 Wh/kg. There is absolutely no need to calculate anything.
Focus on the substance of the article. 60x faster charging rate as compared to Lithium-ion and make a comment regarding that. Otherwise your comments are as pointless as my reply to it.
My laptop battery charges under a minute, but that doesn't make it any good.
If you have no issues with the units / expressions used in the article, could you please explain what is the power and energy density from this quote:
> Stanford’s natural graphite aluminum-ion technology delivers 68.7 Watt-hours per kilogram and 41.2 Watts per kilogram, while its graphite-foam bumps up to 3000Wh/kg.
> The GMG-UQ battery heaves that forward to between 150 and 160Wh/kg and 7000Wh/kg.
If you have no issues with the units / expressions used in the article, could you please explain what is the power and energy density from this quote:
> Stanford’s natural graphite aluminum-ion technology delivers 68.7 Watt-hours per kilogram and 41.2 Watts per kilogram, while its graphite-foam bumps up to 3000Wh/kg.
> The GMG-UQ battery heaves that forward to between 150 and 160Wh/kg and 7000Wh/kg.
The problem with the article is that it lacks substance. As an example, it mentions that al-ion has intrinsic advantages and disadvantages compared to li-ion, but it only talks about advantages.
Aluminum-ion technology has intrinsic advantages and disadvantages over the preeminent lithium-ion battery technology being used in almost every EV today.
What do calendar and cycle life in different conditions look like? How do weight/volume per unit power/energy compare with existing li-ion cells? And so on...
It seems like they found a way to improve the energy density of the al-ion cells mentioned in this Stanford news story.
https://news.stanford.edu/2015/04/06/aluminum-ion-battery-03...
But without more detailed specs, it's impossible to compare their cells to existing li-ion cells outside of the specific examples they are using.
Aluminum-ion technology has intrinsic advantages and disadvantages over the preeminent lithium-ion battery technology being used in almost every EV today.
What do calendar and cycle life in different conditions look like? How do weight/volume per unit power/energy compare with existing li-ion cells? And so on...
It seems like they found a way to improve the energy density of the al-ion cells mentioned in this Stanford news story.
https://news.stanford.edu/2015/04/06/aluminum-ion-battery-03...
But without more detailed specs, it's impossible to compare their cells to existing li-ion cells outside of the specific examples they are using.
> It is common notation to put a -1 exponent to indicate division.
I have zero issues with using negative exponents, what I do take issue with is writing "g-1" in an online publication. You either use proper HTML to write an exponent as an exponent, or you use division.
"g-1" is not a a unit, it spells out "gram - 1", which makes no sense at all and there's zero excuse for not even using the commonly accepted crutch "g^-1".
I have zero issues with using negative exponents, what I do take issue with is writing "g-1" in an online publication. You either use proper HTML to write an exponent as an exponent, or you use division.
"g-1" is not a a unit, it spells out "gram - 1", which makes no sense at all and there's zero excuse for not even using the commonly accepted crutch "g^-1".
It is a coin battery and the Apple AirTag uses a CR2032. It was probably a simple misquote.
And yet, CR2032 batteries are not rechargeable, so it doesn't make a good misquote either.
ML2032, VL2032 and LIR2032 are similarly sized variants that can be recharged, but they're not the same, and you shouldn't attempt to recharge a CR2032.
ML2032, VL2032 and LIR2032 are similarly sized variants that can be recharged, but they're not the same, and you shouldn't attempt to recharge a CR2032.
it seems the claim about greater energy density in a vehicle sized battery is to do with saving on the cooling circuitry (20% of the battery as per the article).
That would make sense only if Li-Ion batteries didn't have power densities north of 250 W⋅h/kg.
Commercial battery cells used in vehicle sized applications, however, often do exceed this value.
So even at a 20% loss due to temperature control, an aluminium battery of the quoted power density still struggles to even just match Li-Ion batteries (i.e. Li-Ion batteries including cooling still have at least 26% higher energy density by mass; using a Panasonic cell as reference point).
Commercial battery cells used in vehicle sized applications, however, often do exceed this value.
So even at a 20% loss due to temperature control, an aluminium battery of the quoted power density still struggles to even just match Li-Ion batteries (i.e. Li-Ion batteries including cooling still have at least 26% higher energy density by mass; using a Panasonic cell as reference point).
> GMG plans to bring graphene aluminum-ion coin cells to market late this year or early next year, with automotive pouch cells planned to roll out in early 2024
Well, that's pleasantly surprising if true. I was expecting the standard caveat of it only being in research so far.
Well, that's pleasantly surprising if true. I was expecting the standard caveat of it only being in research so far.
If it were true, wouldn't it stand to reason that someone would have snatched them up a long time ago. Tesla, GM, FORD,VW, etc? They would have been all over this company ages ago.
Over 90% of all the published breakthroughs are fantasy.
Over 90% of all the published breakthroughs are fantasy.
That's why I'm still wary. And you're not even listing all the cellphone and laptop manufacturer's that would be interested, especially with those claimed charge times.
100% that's the most important claim in the article. A few times a month I open the browser and see some "world changing battery technology" being talked about. Here we are however many years later and the world has not changed. The phones I can buy have LI batteries, the EVs I can buy have LI batteries, the few utility scale battery packs are LI batteries.
Seems like having a technology that crosses the "publish revolutionary battery tech in the press" hurdle is dramatically lower than the "actually make a battery at product scale for a profit" hurdle, and not all of the former will make the latter. Here's hoping these folks do what they say on their production part, because I'm pretty desensitized to the first part of their claim.
Seems like having a technology that crosses the "publish revolutionary battery tech in the press" hurdle is dramatically lower than the "actually make a battery at product scale for a profit" hurdle, and not all of the former will make the latter. Here's hoping these folks do what they say on their production part, because I'm pretty desensitized to the first part of their claim.
> A few times a month I open the browser and see some "world changing battery technology" being talked about. Here we are however many years later and the world has not changed.
That is the entire reason for Popular Science magazine it did for decades. Amazing things that never were built some were yes but many were not. It's fun to read about it but I can see how it could be frustrating too.
That is the entire reason for Popular Science magazine it did for decades. Amazing things that never were built some were yes but many were not. It's fun to read about it but I can see how it could be frustrating too.
99% of battery research has never left the lab. It's considered a milestone to reach battery pouch production because literally anyone can make coin cells but pouch cells require some serious initial investment.
I read so many breakthroughs in cell technologies lately, that I can't tell anymore what is research and what is success. Not being a specialist doesn't help either... So, are those plans based on real and tested batteries (as in, not just surface tests or whatever laboratory conditions), or thoughts how it would pan out if successful?
Although bringing some batteries to market this year indicates it is quite far along. Most of the battery/energy news I’ve seen on hn is “breakthrough will hit the market 5+ Years”.
They claim 150Wh/kg - that's well below the best lithium ion cells, I think. If I am not mistaken, Lithium Ion cells reach more than 200Wh/kg nowadays and are definitely capable of reaching 300Wh/kg.
First of all battery technologies tend to get better over time.
Second, many times faster charging speed is nothing to ignore. It means you can charge on many more occasions and you don't have to stop the car.
Think you could stop your car by the side of the road and be on your way in matter of a minute.
Ability to charge cars fast is a huge problem because not only they need charge more frequently than feuling they need so much more time to do it. If you calculate, replacing all cars with EVs would require a lot of space to park cars and to guest the people that need to wait for the car to get charged.
Second, many times faster charging speed is nothing to ignore. It means you can charge on many more occasions and you don't have to stop the car.
Think you could stop your car by the side of the road and be on your way in matter of a minute.
Ability to charge cars fast is a huge problem because not only they need charge more frequently than feuling they need so much more time to do it. If you calculate, replacing all cars with EVs would require a lot of space to park cars and to guest the people that need to wait for the car to get charged.
But where are you going to find a 500kW charger? Maybe if you put a complex and expensive supercapacitor bank in the charger, but then the charger will need to recharge between charging sessions. And what guage of copper will you need to push over 1000A? You would probably need to hook up a bunch of parallel cables to charge at that rate.
The supercharger will likely have the same Al-ion battery. And there's still untapped potential of using high voltage, when 10kV switching is possible with recent semiconductors, then to get 500kW means only 50A current.
You're not going to have the generation capacity for this to be useful though. For your users it's nicer to have 4 x 150kw stations than 1 600kw station.
If users are willing to pay 10x normal price of electricity for 600kw supercharging - and why not, that is still comparable price to fossil fuels on basis of added distance - the generation and improved grid will certainly appear.
High current high voltage is very deadly combination and expensive. I think they would want to stay away from this because the amount of insulation and safety inspections will render this unprofitable.
I think it is much easier to just swallow the pill an work with high current which at least is not going to immediately kill you if you manage to nick the cable or complete the circuit with your body in some other way.
I think it is much easier to just swallow the pill an work with high current which at least is not going to immediately kill you if you manage to nick the cable or complete the circuit with your body in some other way.
Such "very deadly" voltage is in operation for decades very close to your house, yet it is somehow profitable. Granted, the cables aren't usually manipulated by consumers. But the currently used car chargers are deadly already if you manage to do the things you describe. The cables and connectors are constructed to prevent it, this is very old and well-understood technology.
Tesla superchargers already charge at 250kW. They use liquid cooling in the cable.
depends how you look at it, but for regenerative breaking, it can be trivial to generate spikes of 10-40kw.
Having a battery that can handle that and not get hot or loose capacity is really useful.
As for 500kw chargers, depending on the round trip efficiency and the discharge rate, using these batteries as a charging source would seem reasonable. It also would be useful for grid stabilization, having something that can instantly absorb a few megawatts would be really useful.
Having a battery that can handle that and not get hot or loose capacity is really useful.
As for 500kw chargers, depending on the round trip efficiency and the discharge rate, using these batteries as a charging source would seem reasonable. It also would be useful for grid stabilization, having something that can instantly absorb a few megawatts would be really useful.
> what guage of copper will you need to push over 1000A
I don't think 1000A is that huge of an issue.
These guys weld with 1000A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j61ezBX-EyA
Trucks use that kind of current to start and it doesn't seem to be an issue, though the starting sequence is rather short so it may be counting on the fact that some stuff will not have time to get heated up.
I don't want to say you can just put 1000A into existing cables, what I want to say that I can imagine this being manageable with some additional engineering (and especially safety) challenges to be solved.
I don't think 1000A is that huge of an issue.
These guys weld with 1000A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j61ezBX-EyA
Trucks use that kind of current to start and it doesn't seem to be an issue, though the starting sequence is rather short so it may be counting on the fact that some stuff will not have time to get heated up.
I don't want to say you can just put 1000A into existing cables, what I want to say that I can imagine this being manageable with some additional engineering (and especially safety) challenges to be solved.
Pretty sure that’s what https://ozopenergy.com does.
The competition EVs face is the number of miles per second you can insert into your gas car. EVs don't have to charge at the maximum possible theoretical speed, just get the ratio with gas cars down from the hours:minutes ratio that it is at now. If an EV could charge in 10-15 minutes, range anxiety would become a thing of the past, even if it could be done more quickly in theory.
> But where are you going to find a 500kW charger?
350 kW CCS chargers are deployed all over the world. A few are 400 kW:
https://insideevs.com/news/375020/repsol-most-powerful-charg...
500 kW chargers are within the CCS specification (1,000 volts, 500 amps). Longer term I imagine companies will start deploying 500 kW CCS chargers.
350 kW CCS chargers are deployed all over the world. A few are 400 kW:
https://insideevs.com/news/375020/repsol-most-powerful-charg...
500 kW chargers are within the CCS specification (1,000 volts, 500 amps). Longer term I imagine companies will start deploying 500 kW CCS chargers.
Seems like the lack of need for cooling weight would make up for the difference.
This is close to on par with Lithium ion (cobalt/nickel) 200-250Wh/kg. Newer Li/S technology is 2x denser (400-500Wh/kg) but currently has durability issues over recharge cycles.
Al/graphene in this form could be more cost effective and probably marginally lighter due to a lack of cooling/heating needed, safety equipment, and rare earth minerals needed.
That it charges faster and has more durability over recharge cycles would be a bonus.
Another open question is if you can produce this at industrial scale relatively cheaply, because having affordable gigawatt storage for renewables would be lovely.
This: https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/gmg-graphene-aluminiu...
may be a better article. Here is a clarifying quote:
> Dr Ashok Nanjundan, GMG’s Chief Scientific Officer, said, “This is a real game-changing technology which can offer a real alternative with an interchangeable battery technology for the existing lithium-ion batteries in almost every application with GMG’s Graphene and UQ’s patent-pending aluminium ion battery technology. The current nominal voltage of our batteries is 1.7 volts, and work is being carried out to increase the voltage to directly replace existing batteries and which lead to higher energy densities.”
> “The real differentiator about these batteries is their very high power density of up to 7000 watts/kg, which endows them with a very high charge rate. Furthermore, graphene aluminium-ion batteries provide major benefits in terms of longer battery life (over 2000 charge / discharge cycles testing so far with no deterioration in performance), battery safety (very low fire potential) and lower environmental impact (more recyclable),” said Dr Ashok Nanjundan.
Al/graphene in this form could be more cost effective and probably marginally lighter due to a lack of cooling/heating needed, safety equipment, and rare earth minerals needed.
That it charges faster and has more durability over recharge cycles would be a bonus.
Another open question is if you can produce this at industrial scale relatively cheaply, because having affordable gigawatt storage for renewables would be lovely.
This: https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/gmg-graphene-aluminiu...
may be a better article. Here is a clarifying quote:
> Dr Ashok Nanjundan, GMG’s Chief Scientific Officer, said, “This is a real game-changing technology which can offer a real alternative with an interchangeable battery technology for the existing lithium-ion batteries in almost every application with GMG’s Graphene and UQ’s patent-pending aluminium ion battery technology. The current nominal voltage of our batteries is 1.7 volts, and work is being carried out to increase the voltage to directly replace existing batteries and which lead to higher energy densities.”
> “The real differentiator about these batteries is their very high power density of up to 7000 watts/kg, which endows them with a very high charge rate. Furthermore, graphene aluminium-ion batteries provide major benefits in terms of longer battery life (over 2000 charge / discharge cycles testing so far with no deterioration in performance), battery safety (very low fire potential) and lower environmental impact (more recyclable),” said Dr Ashok Nanjundan.
Aren't energy density, weight, and bulk all irrelevant in large-scale fixed service?
Within limits, otherwise pumping water uphill would be more common as an energy storage technique.
The durability, operation at all temperature, and use of common, "easily" obtained ingredients are very relevant though.
The durability, operation at all temperature, and use of common, "easily" obtained ingredients are very relevant though.
I see lots of water towers in Texas.
Water towers aren't even close to the scale needed for reasonable energy storage.
A typical water tower holds about 4 million liters of water and is about 50m tall.
The Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage reservoir holds 410 BILLION liters of water (so 410 thousand times what a water tower holds) and has a head of 320m.
So you'd need about 1.6 million water towers with energy extraction capability to be equivalent to just that one pumped storage plant, ignoring the fact that you'd have to do /something/ with that water to extract the energy at the right time, when typically it's just drained out as people need it for faucets/showers/whatever.
On top of this, you'd be dropping a lot of the pressure from the water tower, which is like 99% of the reason that water towers exist, to provide adequate water pressure.
A typical water tower holds about 4 million liters of water and is about 50m tall.
The Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage reservoir holds 410 BILLION liters of water (so 410 thousand times what a water tower holds) and has a head of 320m.
So you'd need about 1.6 million water towers with energy extraction capability to be equivalent to just that one pumped storage plant, ignoring the fact that you'd have to do /something/ with that water to extract the energy at the right time, when typically it's just drained out as people need it for faucets/showers/whatever.
On top of this, you'd be dropping a lot of the pressure from the water tower, which is like 99% of the reason that water towers exist, to provide adequate water pressure.
The other consideration for myself when it comes to electric vehicles is charging time - I used to semi-regularily drive ~500 km to see my parents. Most electric vehicles would struggle with that and make me consider a recharge. Even if I have to fill up one or two times on the trip if the time it took was the same as filling up a tank of gas it'd make me much less reluctant. The question there of course is if the power grid could support that much power that quickly. I suppose it would need it's own aluminum-ion tanks that charged continually throughout the day.
Agree. I worry manufacturers are going to consider a range near 300 miles or 500 km “enough”. Many people in the US at least live in rural places where a 300 mile round trip might be needed weekly or even daily (for “shorter” distances like 200 miles that could still challenge a battery on a hot/cold day).
I would bet that Tesla will make an extreme-range electric car whenever they can, just to show off. They're already at 500 miles on the high end.
You might be right for other companies though, until Tesla proves extreme range has a market and they have to catch up again.
You might be right for other companies though, until Tesla proves extreme range has a market and they have to catch up again.
You wouldn't need fast charging for a 300mi trip, assuming you had level 1 charging at your destination. 300mi daily may be too much for at-home level 1, but at-home level 2 (washer/dryer plug) isn't hard to install at all.
I think that you will find that generally you can make roughly similar trips, assuming you are in an area what has the stations installed.
You can try various options easily here: https://abetterrouteplanner.com/
You can try various options easily here: https://abetterrouteplanner.com/
I just tried to build the trip - with a Tesla long range I only have to add a 20 minute supercharger stop (assuming that the slots are available), but for a Chevy volt it's adding an hour of charging time in two 30 minute breaks.
Supercharger network is a big advantage for Teslas. Hoping the other charging networks catch up eventually.
Ideally we don't develop a ton of different proprietary networks and instead have fuel stations.
That's a good point. Current LI Teslas recharge times are bounded by the charging stations, and not the batteries.
Non-tesla charging stations are even worse, and become buggy when trying to charge the mach E at the rate the vehicle attempts.
Non-tesla charging stations are even worse, and become buggy when trying to charge the mach E at the rate the vehicle attempts.
> Non-tesla charging stations are even worse
No, the fastest charging cars on the road today are CCS cars and so far none of them can make full use of a 350 kW CCS charging station.
The Porsche Taycan and the Audi e-tron GT have peak charging speeds of 270 kW. The Lucid Air is supposed to have a peak charge rate above 300 kW. The Audi e-tron charges at 150 kW but its charging curve is flat to 80% so it ends up being one of the fastest charging EVs. The Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 peak at around 225 kW and stay above 130 kW to reach 80% state of charge in 18 minutes.
No, the fastest charging cars on the road today are CCS cars and so far none of them can make full use of a 350 kW CCS charging station.
The Porsche Taycan and the Audi e-tron GT have peak charging speeds of 270 kW. The Lucid Air is supposed to have a peak charge rate above 300 kW. The Audi e-tron charges at 150 kW but its charging curve is flat to 80% so it ends up being one of the fastest charging EVs. The Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 peak at around 225 kW and stay above 130 kW to reach 80% state of charge in 18 minutes.
Interesting thing from another article on the company:
> GMG is an Australian-based clean-tech disruptive company listed on the TSXV (TSXV:GMG) that produces graphene and hydrogen by cracking methane (natural gas) instead of mining graphite
I wonder about the long term environmental impact of a technology that - at present - depends on continued fossil fuel extraction.
https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/gmg-graphene-aluminiu...
> GMG is an Australian-based clean-tech disruptive company listed on the TSXV (TSXV:GMG) that produces graphene and hydrogen by cracking methane (natural gas) instead of mining graphite
I wonder about the long term environmental impact of a technology that - at present - depends on continued fossil fuel extraction.
https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/gmg-graphene-aluminiu...
"clean-tech" now is climate tech (Being a cleantech vet). And if you are converting graphene and hydrogen from NG you aren't climate tech - at best transitional technology, at worst enabling fossil fuels.
Battery packs, car dashboards, your shopping bags as well as gasoline is made from oil, but only one of those is above 1% of world green house gas emissions.
Creating graphene from gas instead of mining does seem cleaner, as methane can and probably will use green sources in the future.
For NG -> graphene conversion, I don't see a problem, unless you're using it to smelt aluminum. OTOH, if batteries displace fossil fuel use, that seems like a huge positive, even with moderate amounts of aluminum smelting.
Creating graphene from gas instead of mining does seem cleaner, as methane can and probably will use green sources in the future.
For NG -> graphene conversion, I don't see a problem, unless you're using it to smelt aluminum. OTOH, if batteries displace fossil fuel use, that seems like a huge positive, even with moderate amounts of aluminum smelting.
And it’s not like we’re running low on graphite deposits.
You need a lot of gas to make a bit of solid.
But maybe the process is better than direct combustion if you’re still able to use the process heat for something like district heating.
Better to get the carbon sequestered in graphite instead of CO2.
You need a lot of gas to make a bit of solid.
But maybe the process is better than direct combustion if you’re still able to use the process heat for something like district heating.
Better to get the carbon sequestered in graphite instead of CO2.
> “It charges so fast it’s basically a super capacitor,” Nicol claimed. “It charges an iPhone coin cell in less than 10 seconds.”
> The new battery cells are claimed to deliver far more energy density than current lithium-ion batteries, without the cooling, heating or rare-earth problems they face.
> “So far there are no temperature problems. Twenty percent of a lithium-ion battery pack (in a vehicle) is to do with cooling them. There is a very high chance that we won’t need that cooling or heating at all,” Nicol claimed.
Am I off base by saying, this is potentially world changing if true?
> The new battery cells are claimed to deliver far more energy density than current lithium-ion batteries, without the cooling, heating or rare-earth problems they face.
> “So far there are no temperature problems. Twenty percent of a lithium-ion battery pack (in a vehicle) is to do with cooling them. There is a very high chance that we won’t need that cooling or heating at all,” Nicol claimed.
Am I off base by saying, this is potentially world changing if true?
Potentially. But the trade off with Al-ion cells is lower energy density, and thus less battery life/range compared to Li-ion.
Would you accept half the battery life/range if it means you can recharge in 5 minutes instead of an hour? In phones, probably not. In cars and trucks, maybe, depending on the specific application. In stationary storage? Quite possibly!
Would you accept half the battery life/range if it means you can recharge in 5 minutes instead of an hour? In phones, probably not. In cars and trucks, maybe, depending on the specific application. In stationary storage? Quite possibly!
There might be some reasonable compromises to be had. Say, for example, a car with 50% of its batteries in this new fast-charging tech, and 50% slower-charging Lithium Ion. The Li-Ion could act as a reservoir of power for longer trips, but most people would only ever use the Al-ion most of the time.
This kind of hybrid may be impractical because it still requires cooling equipment (and its added weight) for the Li-ion, I'm just spitballing here.
This kind of hybrid may be impractical because it still requires cooling equipment (and its added weight) for the Li-ion, I'm just spitballing here.
Station storage is where it's at, these would firm up renewables quite nicely.
They will face two big challenges trying to make these for stationary storage:
1) Lifetime - Historically aluminum ion batteries struggle with cycle life. The aluminum ions are bigger than lithium ions so the batteries endure more strain during charge/discharge cycles. For grid-scale storage, you need to be able to last >10,000 cycles so they need to address this.
2) Scaling up the size of the batteries. Eventually they will need to move on from coin cells and start making larger battery cells. Many technologies struggle to keep their fast charge/discharge characteristics when they scale up in size. We'll see how they do with this.
1) Lifetime - Historically aluminum ion batteries struggle with cycle life. The aluminum ions are bigger than lithium ions so the batteries endure more strain during charge/discharge cycles. For grid-scale storage, you need to be able to last >10,000 cycles so they need to address this.
2) Scaling up the size of the batteries. Eventually they will need to move on from coin cells and start making larger battery cells. Many technologies struggle to keep their fast charge/discharge characteristics when they scale up in size. We'll see how they do with this.
No, it's huge if its true. Also it means it's much more efficient because you're not losing all that energy to waste heat.
The discovery of coin cell batteries in iPhones WOULD be a big deal!
Naive question: are the batteries themselves really the limiting factor at this point?
The fastest chargers seem to be in the 250kW range. That's a lot (on par with a loaded tractor-trailer moving at highway speed), requiring sophisticated cooling of the chargers themselves, and complaints that the cables are too heavy for some people.
If we could charge 60x faster, would it be feasible to hook up a 10 megawatt cable to it? That's literally the power output of a small country.
The fastest chargers seem to be in the 250kW range. That's a lot (on par with a loaded tractor-trailer moving at highway speed), requiring sophisticated cooling of the chargers themselves, and complaints that the cables are too heavy for some people.
If we could charge 60x faster, would it be feasible to hook up a 10 megawatt cable to it? That's literally the power output of a small country.
Kind of a tangent, but I recently found out how much of a PITA EVs are when they wreck. Unlike gas tanks, batteries can start fires or even explode days after a wreck.
I suspect that alcohol fuel produced by carbon-neutral methods makes more sense for (hybrid electric motor) vehicles than batteries when you factor in the environmental costs of production and disposal.
I suspect that alcohol fuel produced by carbon-neutral methods makes more sense for (hybrid electric motor) vehicles than batteries when you factor in the environmental costs of production and disposal.
I will note I'm glad we don't get as many battery breakthrough hype articles on hackernews -- reddit is littered with them. It seems that the rate at which they are coming through is much lower (maybe hype around storage is dying off a bit?).
If feels like only production ready tech with that will really change the dynamics of the market should make their way through - almost none of them are ever going to make it to market and I don't feel like I am any better for knowing about all of them.
If feels like only production ready tech with that will really change the dynamics of the market should make their way through - almost none of them are ever going to make it to market and I don't feel like I am any better for knowing about all of them.
Aluminum is the third most abundant element after oxygen and silicon in the earth's crust. Lithium is the 25th most abundant element. Early days, but that might bring cost down.
> “It charges so fast it’s basically a super capacitor,” Nicol claimed. “It charges an iPhone coin cell in less than 10 seconds.”
Are iPhone batteries considered coin cells? Isn't a coin cell like the ones shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell which are much smaller in capacity? If he is indeed referring to a 2000-4000mAh battery size then that is amazing.
Are iPhone batteries considered coin cells? Isn't a coin cell like the ones shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell which are much smaller in capacity? If he is indeed referring to a 2000-4000mAh battery size then that is amazing.
Nah, that just doesn't make any sense at all.
It even contradicts their own numbers, which calculated the charge time for an average phone to 1 - 5 minutes [0].
IMO this article is just a hot mess cobbled together by someone who doesn't have the faintest idea about what he's even writing about.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gmg-graphene-aluminium-ion-ba...
It even contradicts their own numbers, which calculated the charge time for an average phone to 1 - 5 minutes [0].
IMO this article is just a hot mess cobbled together by someone who doesn't have the faintest idea about what he's even writing about.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gmg-graphene-aluminium-ion-ba...
Well it's a quote, so the author of the article didn't write the claim. There's another article out there which inserts a word: "iPhone sized coin cell", which makes a little more sense.
The design of the iPhone and coin cell are similar. The iPhone battery is essentially a wrapped up coin cell.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RTjy2eFHzRc
In comparison a package battery like in an EV is made up of many individual cells to provide higher voltages. An iPhone can run on 3 or 4 volts, but a Tesla cannot.
In comparison a package battery like in an EV is made up of many individual cells to provide higher voltages. An iPhone can run on 3 or 4 volts, but a Tesla cannot.
How many charge cycles would it last. A battery close to energy density of lithium ion batteries but with nearly unlimited charge cycles would be an instant buy for me
Over 2000 cycles with no degradation:
https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/gmg-graphene-aluminiu...
https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/gmg-graphene-aluminiu...
How easy will this thing be to mass manufacture? The batteries "use nanotechnology to insert aluminum atoms inside tiny perforations in graphene planes", which sounds like pretty sophisticated processing.
That said, nearly everything else sounds very promising... just like all the other extremely promising battery R&D press releases. Let's hope this one's for real.
That said, nearly everything else sounds very promising... just like all the other extremely promising battery R&D press releases. Let's hope this one's for real.
It's as real as the iPhone coin cell batteries they say they can charge in just seconds.
This looks like related research from more reputable source, can anyone knowledgeable comment on relationship/validity?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21108-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21108-4
What's happened with the interchangeable fuel-cell batteries, which 15-or-so years ago were said to be able to power laptops, smartphones, and all kinds of devices, and replaced empty-for-full at convenience stores for pennies a piece?
Planned roll-out in 2024? Ok. Who wants to take that bet?
Rollout expected this year for button cells, automotive cell pouches by 2024. But yeah, realistically, even if they hit the release date of 2024, it might be 2027 before the public is generally aware that the technology is switching. Sell it 2024, get it in prototypes 2025, build it in 2026? Even that seems optimistic.
Its a general problem with "revolutionary" breakthroughs with batteries. Its not that they are bad at all, but the most promising ones have timeframes that move them back into incremental enhancement.
The good news, though? EVs will be at least twice as good in 2030 as they are today.
The good news, though? EVs will be at least twice as good in 2030 as they are today.
This is the epitome of "big if true"
cool but "coin-cell validation batteries" are a long way from "EV Range Breakthrough"
Dear battery technology claimant,
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
[ ] your claims are lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------