« A Heaping Helping of Hitlers on the Left | Main | Bill Maher Mocks Michelle Fields: "Oh My God It's Like The Zapruder Film If Nothing Had Happened" »

April 10, 2016

This New Battery is a Game Changer

The battery, which is now patent-pending at the US and other patent offices, is expected to cost less than $100 per kWh (about one-fourth that of the best batteries today),
to weigh less and therefore provide longer range to cars, to have a greater power density (power to weight ratio), have a faster charging time and much longer life. Another substantial positive is the material itself, made from common acetylene. There are no rare earths to mine and extract, no toxic residues. The halogen dopants are also common, cheap, and abundant. | Watts Up With That?

Posted by gerardvanderleun at April 10, 2016 9:23 AM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Let's suppose we have a battery that costs nothing to build, is instantly rechargeable, weighs next to nothing, and has an unlimited charge potential. Would that solve the major problem confronting the widespread use of the electric car? What, there is still a problem? Humbly, I ask: Where are we going to get the electricity required to energise these batteries?

Congrats to the developers of these new batteries. I'm sure there are many applications where this new technology will be a "game changer." But, sorry to rain on their parade, the widespread use of electricity to power cars is a fantasy.

Posted by: michaelx [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2016 11:13 AM

After the up front payment, the sun is free.
Yes, it is doable.

Posted by: ghostsniper [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2016 5:14 PM

I'm not sure I understand your comment, ghostsniper, but I will add this to my previous comment:

I have not done the numbers but let's assume there is way to generate enough electrical energy to replace gasoline as an automotive fuel. Two points:

One: Why would we do so? What's the problem with gasoline? Two: The so-called environmental lobby will not let any more massive electrical generation to go forward. They are not interested in any solution to find an economical substitute for fossil fuels. They are bad actors operating in bad faith. Their real goal is to bring about an end to industrialisation.

Posted by: michaelx [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2016 6:09 PM

Ghostsniper,

Michaelx is right -- the envirowackos are really interested in de-industrialization. Never mind that billions of people would die under their schemes. Mother Gaia *must* be saved!

And the Sun ain't free, when you stop to think about the absurdly large physical plant that would be needed to run the country on solar power alone, and the maintenance of that absurdly large plant. The USA uses about 100 quadrillion BTUs of energy a year in all forms, and that works out to an average power demand of 3.2 trillion watts. The exact area such a solar-power plant would cover varies quite a bit with the assumptions one makes, but we're still talking about paving over a couple of Wyoming's worth of real estate with solar cells. And then paving over another Wyoming or two for the battery-bank farms. It just doesn't work.

Yes, I know -- you didn't propose such a thing. But a lot of envirowackos do propose such things, arguing that the Sun is free. And the thought-exercise is useful for pointing out how diffuse solar power really is, and how hard it is to harness it.

All that said, to the extent that improved battery technology can help us de-centralize the nation's electrical grid, I'm all for it -- we're waaaaay too centralized already. It's why we're prone to massive blackouts like the Great Northeastern Blackout of 1965 -- one small failure of equipment in Podunk Square, Iowa, can bring down half the country. *rolls eyes*

My two cents' worth, as usual.

Hale Adams
Pikesville, People's still-mostly-Democratic Republic of Maryland

Posted by: Hale Adams [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2016 10:08 PM

Gentlemen-
I almost always speak from an individual perspective and rarely am I interested in group initiatives, and never anything even remotely gov't related.

First, from an individual's standpoint solar in all things is completely doable and mostly affordable, using the proper methods. You need to let go of the old skool way of thinking about this stuff in order to find new ways of doing things.

Second, as far as solar fueled vehicles go I'm extrapolating based on knowledge and experience. My office is currently fueled by solar - lighting, ceiling fans, computer, TV, stereo, and various other small devices. All of it. My small heater is propane and is used only when it's cold. I have an 8000btu air conditioner that is not yet connected to the solar but will be by summer. Currently I have a little over $600 invested in equipment to get my office off the electrical grid. I have my reasons for doing this, mostly curiosity and uncontrollable inquisitiveness. Solar is something I have been studying and playing around with for a long time and I have a few *enhancements* in my system, created by me, that are not available elsewhere, and I have many more I am be persuing.

Third, who is going to fund a large scale solar power plant as Hale described? Currently no one. There is no will. Also currently the technology is not there, yet, for the long range distribution of solar energy.
Large scale buildings are also problematic.

So I speak mostly from an individual perspective, for people that have homes and smaller type buildings where solar can be installed economically.

Lastly, lifestyle change is the foundation for all things solar. Frankly, people waste a lot of energy. Peak oil is now behind us and will be available less each day so alternative means will be required be they solar or something else or a combination of things. For me, everything is on the table. I have made lots of little changes in my life so that I now use less energy than I did 5 years ago and suffer no bad consequences. The only consistent is change. If I was so inclined to have a solar vehicle right now I could do so and fuel it for less than $500 worth of equipment added to my current rig. Already I do almost no long range travel, most excursions are no more than 100 miles total. However because I often carry building material over difficult terrain a 4wd normally aspirated combustion engine powered vehicle is required. That may change as I age. In 50 years all of this will be past tense and people will wonder why it wasn't done sooner. The reason, of course, is the base for all of societies ills. When there is no more oil something else will take it's place and that day is coming, sooner than you may expect, so it is only prudent to at least think about it with an open mind and not be directed by any single source of info.

Posted by: ghostsniper [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2016 6:55 AM

This is a very flattering article on the exploits and successes of a 17 cent/share company. I fear there is some hyperbole going on here and I wouldn't be trading in the old Ford Galaxy quite yet, with dreams of driving the rest of your life for he same cost of leaving the light on in the upstairs shitter. We're not there yet.

Posted by: Syd B. [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2016 7:56 AM

No one directly addressed my question: What's the problem with gasoline? If you think the problem is that it is going to run out someday then this old article from American Thinker may be of interest.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/03/what_if_oil_and_natural_gas_are_renewable_resources.html
I cannot attest to it's accuracy due to my limited education.

As to Ghostsniper's point about oil running out someday and that something else will have to take its place: I have no way of disputing this but I will say that the real goal of research should be in the direction of developing liquid sunshine - and, no, I'm not talking about whiskey.

If a flammable liquid can be developed to replace gasoline then most of the present engine technology and distribution infrastructure can be preserved. I would bet on this happening before solar energy powers the national grid.

Posted by: michaelx [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2016 9:32 AM

Interesting article michaelx.
I'm from the muscle car era so I have no problems with gasoline. One of my favorite chemicals, right next to strychnine, sodium pentothol and lidocaine.

For me it's all about control.
Must be a personal flaw.
When the power goes out and there's nothing I can do but wait til someone else fixes it pushes me past the limit. That never happens here in my office.

Same with vehicle fuel, I hate going to specific places and buying it. Same with the municipal water so we're going to get a pond dug and I have some ideas on how to inexpensively get the pond water to our house. I'm always looking for options, alternatives.

Posted by: ghostsniper [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2016 11:13 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)