DAILY SCIENCE FIX - BATTERIES - Are we making progress yet?
Are we making progress with rechargable batteries yet...?
(Credit: Image courtesy of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC))
So many things to choose from today so I'll go with the one with the most immediate social import. (I'm forgoing for now a followup on my underappreciated post on Fluorescent Proteins - instead Im going to put a quick update for any interested, in that post. Is that a collective cheer? I'll follow on any comments in that post for the next 24 hrs)
There is energy all around us and someday we will have access to amounts of power that will make the amount of energy we use today look like a penny to our economy. When we unlock the power of fusion, or even find a way to pipe energy down from space*, its possible we will solve all of our energy problems. But that's not today.
In any event, as we move away from a fossil fuel based energy system towards renewables the problem is often storage. When you hear about the coming "hydrogen economy" what is often unsaid is that, among other problems, hydrogen is difficult to store in quantities that are useful, where they are useful.
Research now is being focused in storing the hydrogen in metals, often at the nanoscale:
Much research effort has been directed at absorbing hydrogen in metal powders, forming so-called metal hydrides. Magnesium may absorb up to 7.7 weight per cent of hydrogen, and has commonly been studied for this purpose, especially since fast loading and unloading of hydrogen can be accomplished by adding catalysts like iron and nickel particles.
But for all its hype, its far more likely that renewable resources like wind and solar will have a more immediate impact. But they both have a major problem: they're unreliable. They depend on the varagies of the weather. What would be most useful is if we could have a method of storing that energy reliably for when we actually need it, like on rainy windless days. Im sure I will do upcoming posts on some novel methods for storing the power but new battery technologies are, again, more likely to have an immediate impact.
Today, I spotlight one such new battery breakthrough - air fueled batteries:
The new design has the potential to improve the performance of portable electronic products and give a major boost to the renewable energy industry. The batteries will enable a constant electrical output from sources such as wind or solar, which stop generating when the weather changes or night falls.
Improved capacity is thanks to the addition of a component that uses oxygen drawn from the air during discharge, replacing one chemical constituent used in rechargeable batteries today. Not having to carry the chemicals around in the battery offers more energy for the same size battery. Reducing the size and weight of batteries with the necessary charge capacity has been a long-running battle for developers of electric cars.
An early demonstration model of the STAIR (St Andrews air) cell. The STAIR (St Andrews Air) cell should be cheaper than today's rechargeables too. The new component is made of porous carbon, which is far less expensive than the lithium cobalt oxide it replaces.
This particular discovery also highlights the benefits of government sponsored research into basic research.
The four-year research project "An O2 Electrode for a Rechargeable Lithium Battery" began on 1 July 2007 and is scheduled to end on 30 June 2011. It has received EPSRC funding of £1,579,137
EPSRC is the main british governmental research agency into the physical sciences. Oh, those Brits, they're funny.
1.00 British Pound = 1.53 U.S. Dollars
Stay Tuned...
Red Cross

















such interesting stuff--I wonder. How do you build a car around a constantly evolving concept for its battery? Won't cars have to change at least as often as new more efficient designs for batteries come into play? I wouldn't want to sink my money into a traditional lithium type battery powered car if all of a sudden the air-powered batteries come on the scene and make my car a dinosaur.
May 19, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Seems someone should be thinking about building component cars, with parts/units that could be swapped out/in as things evolve. Maybe someone is already working on that.
May 19, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant idea -- component cars. Hope they hurry up. My CRX is now 20 years old with 252k miles. It still gets 47 mpg to and from work. Since I keep my cars a long time, I will only buy a new one when a model is introduced that has comparable longevity to the one I have now. The component concept would make that feasible.
May 19, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that rapidly evolving technologies are just a byproduct of modern society. Its unlikely to end anytime soon. In any event I think there will be upgradeable car batteries. We already do it for our cell phones and computers.
May 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. But this design is (from the article) some five years away from market, and that might be optimistic.
May 19, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm equally interested in high-efficiency heavy-use storage batteries for fixed installations, i.e. your house or a large utility. If we have enough cheap power, we can convert it to easily stored chemicals like ethanol, methane, or hydrogen peroxide, using atmospheric carbon as needed. But to make best use of intermittent sun and wind, large installations like King Island's flow batteries are needed. Those exist now, in an industrial setup that serves an entire town. (Off Tasmania, Australia.)
Similar designs would be appropriate for homes. An engineer friend calculated that four oil drums carrying the active chemicals would run a typical house for a week or so.
It's all cost issues for now. One project in Canada looked at simple wartime houses, small cottages lacking insulation. They found that 100% self-sufficiency was possible, with insulation and solar panels and such, but it cost the same as the value of the house. But since the actual power is free, we only need ways to get past the infrastructure cost.
If your house had enough peak power output, surpluses could be banked for poor weather, and/or to produce chemical fuel for your car. But the car is its own paradox. The easiest fuel storage is chemical, while the most efficient engine is electrical. A way around that is the series hybrid, where a fuel engine runs at maximum efficiency to deliver power to the electric engine and batteries.
The slow recharge time of batteries is another area of work, with one technique (nano-scale coatings on lithium particles) looking like a tenfold speedup. Not at market yet, either, nor are ultra-capacitor fast-charging designs. That's the value of the hybrid car---it can take advantage of advances in batteries as well as fuel conversion.
So one might commute by charging up at home or work, but travel to visit family by buying liquid or gaseous fuels.
May 19, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
My solution for rainy windless days - sleep in.
May 19, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope readers aren't misled by some ambiguous language into thinking that hydrogen is an alternative to wind, solar, nuclear, etc. There is almost no hydrogen gas available from natural sources, so the hydrogen must be generated using some other energy source. It's an energy carrier, not a new supply. Thus hydrogen directly competes with batteries, not with oil wells and solar patterns. Right now, the best batteries have more energy per cost, weight, or volume than our hydrogen technology.
So why is there so much buzz about hydrogen? It's largely driven by the common confusion, sometimes deliberately created, of hydrogen energy storage with (virtually non-existent) hydrogen energy supply.
May 19, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likely the expectation of fuel cells, which are easy if fed with pure hydrogen. Assuming an efficient supply of hydrogen this conversion is good efficiency for recovering the energy.
One place with lots of open space for solar panels is the ocean, which provides the feedstock for storing electricity as hydrogen by electrolysis. There are some catalytic techniques that might reduce the energy cost of separating the H2 by large amounts, but even at 50% it might be worth it if the PV and floating farm were cheap enough.
A mixed benefit is that cooling the ocean by shading it allows more CO2 absorption. Bad news is acidifying the ocean by absorbing CO2. I don't know the balance on that, whether it's a net gain.
May 19, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post is not exactly clear but the "for all the hype" comment was directed at "the hydrogen economy".
May 19, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly closer to production?
BASF to develop 350-mile e-car 'super battery'
Li-S has a poorer theoretical Kw-Hr/Kg than Li-Oxygen, but the latter also has some issues with poor performance at low temperatures.
May 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink