Thread for new battery breakthrough PR releases

Stan, check that Wiki article again....
...By pressurising the hydrogen in the electrolyser the need for an external hydrogen compressor is eliminated, the average energy consumption for internal differential pressure compression is around 3%.
So, the process is to pump up the pressure of the water feed, rather than the gas outlet
And that 3% power only get to 120 bar....more pressure needs more power.
500,000 psi , is a impractical dream.
The best , carbon tension wrapped cylinders are only rated for 10,000 psi (700 bar).
 
I would prefer the liquid. The heat exchanger would help with cooling in hot Texas.

I personally think they just want something to sell. One good thing about hydrogen is it's light, does not hang around on the ground.

I'm on the fence, we need a few more advances.
 
Hillhater said:
Stan, check that Wiki article again....
...By pressurising the hydrogen in the electrolyser the need for an external hydrogen compressor is eliminated, the average energy consumption for internal differential pressure compression is around 3%.
So, the process is to pump up the pressure of the water feed, rather than the gas outlet
And that 3% power only get to 120 bar....more pressure needs more power.
500,000 psi , is a impractical dream.
The best , carbon tension wrapped cylinders are only rated for 10,000 psi (700 bar).

I'll have to stand corrected on the 500,000psi, I'm damn sure I'd seen some major manufacturer or institute successfully testing to that pressure and vessels capable of withstanding it have been made but at that pressure hydrogen would become a solid metal, seems like 30,000psi (2000bar) is around the maximum possible (section 1.3.1 here):
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06015.pdf
700bar is the industry standard but the vessels have a much higher burst test rating, somewhere around 1800bar. It may have been methane I was looking at, it can be compressed higher than hydrogen but not sure how much higher, doubt it's 10x though. Could have been nanotubes or those glass microbubble things either, a hypothetical figure to say "don't worry about that 700bar bomb you're driving around with".

For compression by electrolysis, 120bar is just a commonly used pressure and that is actual pressure created by electrolysis, the only pump needed is one to keep feeding it water. The electrons don't care how much external pressure they're exposed to, they don't give a damn if it's 1bar or 1000bar, it's the atomic bond being broken and that laughs with scorn at such tiny pressures.

Stopping things exploding is another matter, squeeze any gas to 100bar and it's going to get pretty damn hot and I've no idea what the self-ignition point is of browns gas under pressure and I'm sure as hell not going to try finding it! ;) 3% means the process is 97% efficient but I'm guessing that's a highly refined ideal, extremely slow with heat recovery as electrolysis at atmospheric pressure causes a lot of heat and adding pressurisation certainly isn't going to reduce it.
 
The real problem with compression is getting it into the fuel tank of a car where you need thousands of PSI. There is a much larger energy loss in doing that.
 
For compression by electrolysis, 120bar is just a commonly used pressure and that is actual pressure created by electrolysis, the only pump needed is one to keep feeding it water.
If you have an electrolyser operating at 120bar, the water feed pump needs to feed water at that pressure also.
The advantage is that it is easier (cheaper ) to pressurise water, than compress hydrogen gas after production
 
[youtube]wDKLoLUQgH0[/youtube]

Long video on hydrogen but very informativ, I like lord banfords take on hydrogen like he says copper prices fluctuate alot theres so much to consider so these guy's aint just grabbing an idea and running with it they have data coming in from all the trucks out on site work hours power usage etc.

They hsve not just made 1 prototypes but at least 3 that i can see of pitted against eachother, a pure battery excavator then a hydrogen + fuel cell and finally hydrogen and combustion for a simplicity standard.

Cost wise the combustion version is much cheaper to make and has alot less costly metals involved uses its tradtional diesel piston block with modified head maybe piston stroke and face to alter the compression ratio to suit.

One thing with this ice version its using the most expensive version of fueling per kw of useful work but i see where he is going, hydrogen will only come down in price as more of a competitive market establishes but oil is destined to to go up and up as for copper and batterys they are in high demand and to push the price down below £300k is virtually impossible and keep the machine useful were as a £150k ice based version would be clean enough to run indoors and be built of materials that can be local recycled and sourced.

Eeking out efficency at the cost of another humans habitat is beyond fair in my eyes all aspects of fueling need to be considered, anywhere surplus can be built it should be hydrogen will soon be pushed in heavy duty areas that batterys just can not compete on a cost factor.

The grid interconnect that needs installing to run a jcb would mean to charge its many 100's of kw battery would need a £150k charger plus ground work and cabling easy of half a million installed or trailer it too the local services and supercharger them, hydrogen gonna be more expensive on this front this is where its a complex business game of passing cost and musical chairs whos left with a debt on their hands normally the end user.
 
Whilst technically possible, Hydrogen fueled ICE engines have some major drawbacks to overcome.
Key ones being emissions, seriously reduced efficiency/power output compared to diesel or gas, and of course, fuel costs.
Remember, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, etc ...have all poured millions of dollars into huge development programs to solve this,...and have given up on the idea.
 
I live near a hospital helicopter pad, and when I am outside I can smell the aviation fuel exhaust, its a weird notably different smell from anything else that is ICE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Helicopters_(VH-YXJ),_operated_for_Ambulance_Victoria,_AgustaWestland_AW139_taxiing_at_Wagga_Wagga_Airport_(1).jpg
^Every time I see ^this quite huge hospital helicopter take off I wonder what is going to replace it, and the only answer that comes to mind is hydrogen. I still can't help but assume it will be fuel-cell based, because everyone loves electric only technology.

Even though various models of lithium-ion aircraft exist they aren't practical, just like like quad-copters the C-rate draw destroys the batteries after about 100cycles IMO to a level where it isn't safe to fly without a full permanent battery pack replacement.

Unless they really do come up with better lithium-ion battery technology I think it's literally wasteful to burn out lithium-ion battery packs for such a small amount of flying hours.

We can see the first pose of this thread "Nov 07 2007 2:32pm", that was https://howlongagogo.com/date/2007/november/7
13 years, 9 months, 23 days ago, we have seen so many exciting/promising looking posts on lithium-ion and nothing really came out of it, it's kind of remarkable, lithium-ion still hasn't got to the level where flying is practical.

We have all seen this many times, but for some reason a lot of people just don't understand that heavy discharge (like trying to fly) destroys battery cycles.
file.php


But I really think a lot of people expect something new to happen and now almost 14 years later it's "you'll see!".

Ianhill said:
Long video on hydrogen but very informativ, I like lord banfords take on hydrogen like he says copper prices fluctuate alot theres so much to consider
Yes, while I hope electric lithium-ion EVs take over the world I do agree or am a bit dubious of the entire world running via lithium-ion batteries, as this guy points out below, because of the price of metals.
https://youtu.be/wDKLoLUQgH0?t=731
And I don't even know which metal will go through the roof in costs, it could be any of them, either "copper/nickel/lithium/cobalt" that could be the only metal that doubles/triples and suddenly ruins the expected cost of the EV.

The only reason I have deduced such dubious view is because of living in Australia and seeing metal mining operations start up and die etc, this is because the mine runs out of easy/cheap to mine ore.
Sometimes the mine/refinery gets re-activated as prices go to new highs but it doesn't seem like an ideal model.

Because lithium-ion batteries require a lot of metals it seems likely that it will always be more expensive than combustion vehicles, as long as people are OK with the cost of a vehicle doubling etc then sure lithium-ion will no doubt take over for a while I would say.

I am dubious also of recycling keeping the price of lithium-ion batteries down, most scrap yard EVs get their batteries stripped and sold to 3rd party rebuyers/sellers. So the cells get sprinkled all over the price thus far more likely not to be recycled than some kind of super-master battery recycling system that gets back 98% of the cells that built in to EVs, I am thinking it will be more like 50% actually get properly recycled, because the cells are so useful they can be stripped down to a single cell and used as a torch light battery and thus likely to just be thrown away with regular garbage landfill.

Why I post a fair bit of Hydrogen stuff because the news seems far more promising in terms of seeing new things, sure Telsa/Elon Musk has done a truly fantastic job on EVs, but for me I am wondering whats next, where our the electric trucks/air-craft?

When I go to Fuel Cell Works site there is always new news and actually stuff being built. The claims are far more real, for instance today was this news.
Toyota North America to Assemble FuelCell Modules at Kentucky Plant in 2023-Initial plans are for use in heavy duty fuelcell electric hydrogen trucks
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/toyota-to-assemble-fuel-cell-modules-at-kentucky-plant-in-2023/
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hydrogenpro-as-announces-purchase-order-from-mitsubishi-power-for-the-worlds-largest-single-stack-high-pressure-alkaline-electrolyser-system/

Seems like a lot of scientists are investigating storing hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen atom to make a ammonia compound which can be stored at far lower pressure as a compact liquid, and then using some kind of new membrane technology to detach the nitrogen atom to have pure hydrogen go into the fuel-cell engine. I guess because our air is about 80% nitrogen it wouldn't matter if it's released during the process (compared with co2 at 0.04%) or kept contained inside the vehicle.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/novel-technique-seamlessly-converts-ammonia-to-green-hydrogen/
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-technique-seamlessly-ammonia-green-hydrogen.html
novel-technique-seamle.jpg


Toyota and Hyundai are big companies and they are spending a lot on hydrogen.
Hyundai are having a Tesla style "Hydrogen Wave Day" where on the 7th of September (1 week) they are having special reveals of their new hydrogen technology. Almost 1 million views, they have been promoting this hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eizqsmLjgtE
[youtube]eizqsmLjgtE[/youtube]

I think the logic of large car companies getting behind hydrogen is pretty simple, if EVs are going to cost double in general to ICE cars then they can make hydrogen fuel-cell just as affordable. The thing to always note is nothing will ever be as cheap as traditional ICE, but that's perfectly OK if all our governments are going to ban ICE.
 
TheBeastie said:
I live near a hospital helicopter pad, and when I am outside I can smell the aviation fuel exhaust, its a weird notably different smell from anything else that is ICE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_Helicopters_(VH-YXJ),_operated_for_Ambulance_Victoria,_AgustaWestland_AW139_taxiing_at_Wagga_Wagga_Airport_(1).jpg
^Every time I see ^this quite huge hospital helicopter take off I wonder what is going to replace it, and the only answer that comes to mind is hydrogen. I still can't help but assume it will be fuel-cell based, because everyone loves electric only technology.

Even though various models of lithium-ion aircraft exist they aren't practical, just like like quad-copters the C-rate draw destroys the batteries after about 100cycles IMO to a level where it isn't safe to fly without a full permanent battery pack replacement.

Unless they really do come up with better lithium-ion battery technology I think it's literally wasteful to burn out lithium-ion battery packs for such a small amount of flying hours.

The same pack will last 300-600 cycles if you use it at a correct C rate. We've proven this on the forum many times with cheapo RC lipo packs. This is a vehicle design problem and not something that would stop batteries from becoming the most common energy carrier.
 
Hillhater said:
Whilst technically possible, Hydrogen fueled ICE engines have some major drawbacks to overcome.
Key ones being emissions, seriously reduced efficiency/power output compared to diesel or gas, and of course, fuel costs.
Remember, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, etc ...have all poured millions of dollars into huge development programs to solve this,...and have given up on the idea.

Totally agree the lord has compiled his data and come up with a crossover line based on size of machine vs its use case scenario and the pure ev vehicles above a large box van size always have a high initial cost in money and co2 and it still cannot get run constantly like high mileage units of today thats where cost becomes in favour of the truck so his data agrees with the finding you provide all the cars they build can be pure ev no issue there with a 100k battery.

Way i see it batterys aint needed in most excavators etc for building skyscrappers and large areas where the grid can fit its interconnect first for the area and use it to power the machines that will build the area then transfer it over to power the area once complete but thats no good in rural fields so a mobile machine will still be needed in some use cases.

Burning the stuff aint the answer long term though its a stepping stone towards getting the infastructure inplace to go with fuel cells on a long term time frame i would have thought.

Specially if wet carbon nanotube tech can improve to a point it can take the place of some of the copper in the machine as well as advance the fuel cell itself could lead to a lighter more power dense machine than we have today.

I think we could easily achieve all this before i die but i got a feeling we wont not on a global scale anyway some countries will adopt it while others are build taxi tunnels underground with funky lights and calling it hyper loop or solar freaking roadways.
 
Toyota North America to Assemble FuelCell Modules at Kentucky Plant in 2023-Initial plans are for use in heavy duty fuelcell electric hydrogen trucks.....
Even if successful, there is still the issues of ..
1)..producing large commercial quantities of “clean” hydrogen..at a realistic compettive cost.
2). Developing a nationwide effective storage and distribution system for that hydrogen.
Also it is worth noting that neither Toyota or Hyundai have yet managed to make a commercially viable fuel cell vehicle.
They are known to be selling loss leading products in an attempt to “seed” the market .
It has been suggested that Toyota lose $100k on every Murai sold.! :shock:

Seems like a lot of scientists are investigating storing hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen atom to make a ammonia compound which can be stored at far lower pressure as a compact liquid, and then using some kind of new membrane technology to detach the nitrogen atom to have pure hydrogen go into the fuel-cell engine. I guess because our air is about 80% nitrogen it wouldn't matter if it's released during the process (compared with co2 at 0.04%) or kept contained inside the vehicle.
You do know that ammonia production is the main use for commercial hydrogen currently !
That technology is well known.
However , converting ammonia back to release the hydrogen for fuel , is a much more tricky proposition..yet to be solved commercially.
And of course, all this has to be done using “green/clean” hydrogen to be accepted, and would have to be somewhat financially viable, but looking at the processes involved from initial RE electricity generation, through the hydrogen production, ammonia manufacturing, hydrogen regeneration, fuel cell efficiency/ cost, storage and distribution, etc......that is going to be a tough ask ! :shock:
Personally, i suspect we have more realistic chance of developing a higher energy density battery cell (solid state electrolyte ?) ,..at a lower cost.
 
Hyundai Hydrogen Wave day premiered on YouTube today.
Wasn't as exciting as I had hoped, I was hoping for Psy to come out and sing Gangnam Style with dancing girls etc but no :(

But Hyundai did go over some interesting stuff about costs reduction etc. They have reduced the cost to a fraction of what it cost about 20 years ago.
https://youtu.be/hnWFXaQwKdE?t=1200

2021-09-08 (2).png
 
98% reduction from $ ???... “3 times the cost of my house “. !
So, likely well over $1+ million ?
That would put that next gen fuel cell at $20+k :shock:
As he said....
“ we hope to reduce the fuel cell cost to that of an EV battery by 2030”. !
......that is 9 years away .
 
by Hillhater » Sep 07 2021 4:53pm

98% reduction from $ ???... “3 times the cost of my house “. !
So, likely well over $1+ million ?
That would put that next gen fuel cell at $20+k :shock:
As he said....
“ we hope to reduce the fuel cell cost to that of an EV battery by 2030”. !
......that is 9 years away .

I'm with you. Every few years I check the prices of fuel cell test kits. Need to look again but it was like a $100 a watt, just to play with. When I can get 50w an hour for $100 it would be worth me playing with it.
 
It looks like there was a lot more for the Hyundai Hydrogen Day then that single 40min video.

This is the same video but it had a 40minute long Q&A session after it.
Here is the question most people probably want to ask "How are Fuel-Cell EVs going to get as cheap as battery-EVs (BEVs)".
https://youtu.be/fGGLY9uTvTc?t=2718

Also has newly added small rendering based videos on Hydrogen from Hyundai
https://www.youtube.com/c/HyundaiMotorGroup/videos
These appeared to be the most popular
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x25bWRoNzU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vYtD9Gkvts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h-mwcyojoU
 
There are now YouTube channels for every major type of tech-porn imaginable.

The Elon Musk tech-porn channels where they kind of shave off the reality bits such saying the new Tesla 4680 battery cell has x5 times more energy but forget to mention its x5 bigger is a bit cheeky but I guess that is what tech-porn YouTube is about.
I think The Cold Fusion YT channel comes to mind when I think about being a little bit low on clinical accuracy and just being tech-porn https://www.youtube.com/c/ColdFusion/videos, but it's good entertainment and more healthy than broadcast TV anyway you put it, IMO.

One I been looking at lately is Electric Aviation, this one isn't nearly as flashy, the narrator speaks in a boring dull way and is far more clinical, IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdyZvuObNc8fL1ch97Ijh0A/videos

Anyway here is an interesting new video he made on a new Hydrogen fuel-cell engine from Hypoint ( https://hypoint.com ) that has remarkably high performance claims than other fuel-cell technology.
Breakthrough Fuel Cell Technology for Electric Aviation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0stTeHSVvFw
[youtube]0stTeHSVvFw[/youtube]

#########################################################################################
*ADD*
YouTube's algo has recommended me another interesting Hydrogen technology, this new hydrogen tech was apparently banned by the US government for being too disruptive :shock: , but in recent years has been allowed to proceed... :shock: :p

This BANNED Technology Could Push Hydrogen Cars Over BEVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brEm4mEizns
[youtube]brEm4mEizns[/youtube]
 
There is a thread on the Plasma Kinetics hydrogen storage in the Alternative Energy section.
But basicly the guy is less than truthful with his presentation of facts.
He suggests the technology is transformational, when in reality it is just another way of storing hydrogen ..(possibly ?)
No presentation of working prototypes ?,..no mention of efficiency losses,? No suggestion of costs, just all sales pitch “sizzle” !
He suggests that compression of hydrogen doubles its cost ..? Not true.
He suggest the size/ weight of this system would be much less than a battery.....but ignores the need for a Fuel Cell to be useful..( even then no oportunity for harvesting regeneration !)
At 20 miles from a 15lb cartridge, it would take 40 (600lb) to equal the 800 mile range current fuel cell cars are getting from 6kg of H2 in 3 pressurise tanks weighing ???kg
 
Latest developments in Lithium Sulphur cells suggest a step change in energy density over Li Co and potentially lower costs from cheaper source materials.
...and “only” a decade away !
The Monash team, assisted by CSIRO, report in today's edition of Nature Communications that using a glucose-based additive on the positive electrode they have managed to stabilize lithium-sulfur battery technology, long touted as the basis for the next generation of batteries.

"In less than a decade, this technology could lead to vehicles including electric busses and trucks that can travel from Melbourne to Sydney without recharging. It could also enable innovation in delivery and agricultural drones where light weight is paramount,"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210910121625.htm
 
Lyten Lithium Sulphur cells.
Another player in the LiSulphur market claiming 3x the energy density of NMC, thermal control, low cost, yada yada yada...
Commercial production by 2025 is predicted..maybe earlier !
https://lyten.com/batteries/
And...
[youtube]DNd41MYc7I0[/youtube]
 
Nice.

We're seeing lots of competition in the battery space.. i think seeing 300whr/kg next year is very possible.. 400whr/kg very possible in less than 5 years. There's such a crazy rush to build the next best battery that i'm sure one of these companies is going to land a product.
 
Ai have no doubt we will see batteries with higher energy density, power ratings, fast charge , lower costs,..etc etc.
But i am not so confident with will get those properties in the combinations we want !
High energy density and fast charge, are unlikely to come at cheap cost..but those better cells, hopefully will reduce the demand and cost of existing chemistries .
 
My bet is we'll see low C rates on charge and discharge, that's been the case with a lot of early spec sheets i've seen.

However if we're talking about a doubling of whrs/kg then a halving of C rate isn't so bad if you want a really large capacity ( i'm in that camp ).

A quartering of C rate? well that could be a problem.
Some early solid state batteries were that saggy..
 
400whr/kg very possible in less than 5 years

The PRnews clip suggest a 900whr/kg max potential. Looks like they are using the theoretical limits of what can be achieved with surface enhancements on the graphene. With added surface area at work C rates should not be effected unless they take significant efficiency hits doing so. If the life cycle and capacity end up coming close to claims, you could see relatively large cap packs fitting inside conventional size bike tubes soon.
 
Back
Top