Scientists Powering Batteries with Soda, Tree Sap

BobB writes "St. Louis University researchers have concocted batteries fueled by almost any kind of sugar, from tree sap to flat soda, and that could be used to power everything from computers to cell phones. Their thinking: If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?"

Sugar's nasty property #1:

[Ihlosi]

It's hygroscopic. Of course, if the batteries can deal with that, that's cool.

Re:Sugar's nasty property #1:

[Walt Dismal]

I, for one, salute our new Aspartame-bearing sugar-free electronics overlords.

-- (reading what I typed. Dear god, just shoot me now.)

Re:Sugar's nasty property #1:

[AutopsyReport]

I, for one, am very sick of this retarded meme overlord.

I'm right here, you insensitive clod!

Re:Sugar's nasty property #1:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Meme mashup:

1)In Soviet Russia, the naked and petrified Natalie Portman meme overloads your hot Meept! grits and posts Open Source Caveman Ogg first.
2)????
3) Profit

Re:Sugar's nasty property #1:

[truthsearch]

Apparently it is a favorite meme [seenonslash.com] (so far ranked 3rd).

Re:Sugar's nasty property #1:

[Radon360]

I think for the enzymes to work properly, the sugar would need to be dissolved in water, anyway.

Re:Sugar's nasty property #1:

[jimstapleton]

Oh, I can see it now...

The birds chirping, dew on the grass, notebooks, PDAs and iPods taking flight...

Jacked up.

[crazyjeremy]

Sugar is sticky and it can jack up electronics. I don't think that's a good thing...

Not a bad thing either.

[twitter]

Sugar is sticky and it can jack up electronics. I don't think that's a good thing...

Unless your blood is the nearest source of sugar.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Jacked up.

[crazyjeremy]

Car batteries are sealed and doesn't get refilled often. This type of fuel cell would need to be refilled regularly, thus requiring the user to handle sugar substances. I doubt people on slashdot would ever spill stuff, but normal people might.

Re:Jacked up.

[the_bard17]

So you take the battery out of the device first, place the device a safe distance away from the battery, then refill the battery. After ensuring that there is no spilled liquid on the exterior surface of the battery, reinstall it into the device.

That was simple.

'Course, we're dealing with the same folks who still manage to spill liquid on their laptops, water plants over their (expensive) TVs, etc. On the other hand, there's probably no hope for these folks, so we should be ok with the above.

Re:Jacked up.

[zero_offset]

I doubt people on slashdot would ever spill stuff, but normal people might.

Yeah, nerds, geeks and IT choads have a reputation for cleanliness and orderliness.

Loser [viaarena.com]

MacLoser [johnnylundy.com]

A third loser [imageshack.us]

TEH WINNAR!!1 [pano1544.com]

Ok, that last one is actually a post-Katrina pic. But still -- gimme a fucking break with the slash elitism.
Judging by the slashdotters I know, most people on slashdot live like animals.

Re:Jacked up.

[crazyjeremy]

Judging by the slashdotters I know, most people on slashdot live like animals.

it's called SARCASM. Here's a link in case your vocabulary matches your ability to perceive sarcasm. Whut do dat SARCASM werd mean? [wiktionary.org]

Re:Jacked up.

[LunaticTippy]

I am not a tidy person, but my office is often worse than any of those pictures. My house is easily 10,000 times worse than any of those pictures. No stacks of shelves and boxes 12 feet high, no overflowing totes full of tangled wires. Do I need to post pictures of my computer room to give the internet a standard of what a cluttered room looks like?

Re:Jacked up.

[drinkypoo]

Car batteries are sealed and doesn't get refilled often.

Those statements are incorrect and correct, in that order.

Actually SOME car batteries ARE sealed. The ones whose insides look like modeling clay laid out smooth on tinfoil and wrapped up are sealed. They don't outgas and they can be mounted inside the vehicle, upside down, et cetera.

But the vast majority of vehicles do not have that kind of battery. I don't think I've even heard of them being OE in any vehicle. Most vehicles have batteries that contain plates of lead suspended in sulfuric acid. IIRC there's a lead phosphate coating on the lead plates. during the chemical reaction the sulfur is extracted from the sulfuric acid, various reactions occur (sorry, I am not a chemist) and the lead phosphate is converted to lead sulfate. In the process hydrogen gas is released. When the battery is charged, the process works in reverse, drawing in air. So the batteries are most absolutely not sealed units. They vent. They must be stored, transported, and installed only in an upright position.

The batteries don't get refilled often because the composition of the lead plates has changed over time; the chemicals involved have tended to remain the same but the way the plates are constructed have changed. The process is now more predictable and reliable and you don't tend to have batteries spooging liquid out of their vent holes, just releasing gas.

For the record, anyone who DOES have a battery that permits maintenance ought to check it every year or so. If fluid is low in any cell, add distilled water to bring it up to the proper level. Never add sulfuric acid unless you actually test the acid mixture and discover that it is not correct. They sell little handheld testers with plastic balls that float in the liquid very cheaply at any reputable auto parts store.

Re:Jacked up.

[jimstapleton]

and the stuff that's in a lot of batteries would be as bad or worse.

The trick is... Like normal batteries, they'd keep it in a sealed container!

2.59/battery, anyone?

[BinarySkies]

I recall some previous stories about better batteries than this that could be about the same amount of eco-friendliness. What's up with all the batteries lately? Automobiles could probably be the most worthwhile reason to invent all of these batteries, but that means that it's incredibly likely that the portable power market will become the next oil market.

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[Shihar]

No, autos are the least interesting reason to invent new batteries. Automobiles need energy dense, quick to charge batteries far more then they need eco-friendly batteries. Don't get me wrong, environmentally friendly batteries would be nice, but that means starting over at square one with a new technology. It is far more likely that we will be able to squeeze enough out of an old technology by modifying it in some way to achieve what we need. The eco-friendly stuff will come after the roads are clogged with less-then-friendly battery powered cars.

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[DeePCedure]

Judging from TFA, I don't think charge times will be a huge issue. Just empty the battery's resevoir, refill it with fresh sugary goodnes and enzymes, then drive away. The spent fuel is biodegradeable so you can dump it in the sewer. Refueling would probably end up being infrastructurally similar to current oil-based fuel distribution in order to ensure reliable deliverey and the proper sugar/enzyme mix.

Even if the enzyme reaction takes a little time to get going and build up a proper charge, having multiple batteries running in an asynchronous parallel setup instead of serially should keep people moving. When battery A dies, the car switches to battery B and the "low fuel" light comes on. If you refuel battery A before battery B dies, you never have to worry about waiting for the chemical reaction to ramp up. And that doesn't even account for the possibility of "jump-start" catalysts that could accelerate the chemical reaction through the ramp-up phase before returning to it's normal electron producing rate.

However, nothing significant was mentioned in TFA about energy density, so that's still a concern.

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[Fordiman]

Theoretically, spent fuel is *drinkable*. As is the unspent fuel, if you don't mind insulin shock.

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[wings]

The spent fuel is biodegradeable so you can dump it in the sewer.
If one person does it and it is biodegradeable, it isn't a problem.
If 300Million people do it, you have an environmental disaster.

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[DeePCedure]

How would it be an environmental disaster? The main byproduct of the enzymatic reaction is water.

Is it an environmental disaster when 300M people take a shower everyday? Wash dishes? Do laundry? Flush a toilet? What about when a city with a hybrid or combined waste-water/rain-water sewage system gets hit by a storm? You have minor problems here and there, but rarely anything I'd care to qualify as an environmental disaster.

You could focus on the non-water byproducts, but how would that be any different from the detergents, chemicals, and biological waste that already gets dumped into sewer systems all over the world every minute of every day? Half-time at major sporting events is a bigger concern, and that worry proved to be nothing more than an urban legend.

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[pclminion]

If one person does it and it is biodegradeable, it isn't a problem. If 300Million people do it, you have an environmental disaster.

That does not necessarily follow. We have no idea what this biodegradable waste product IS. The article is short on details. Urine is also biodegradable, and produced by everyone on the planet, and as far as I can tell we're not in the middle of Urine Armageddon...

Internal human medical uses

[spineboy]

Using a power source like this would be a great boon to any medical devices that currently run off batteries - i.e. pacemakers, infusion pumps,cochlear implants etc. Hell, you could use it to power via induction external gadgets - your cellphone, watch, computer wireless modem, heck - internal computer with computer terminal glasses, etc.
  Build in a failsafe so that it doesn't reduce your blood sugar to below a critical level, so that you don't go into a hypoglycemic shock, and you're good to go. This would be really useful to diabetics to maintain their constant blood sugar level at a more physiologic normal value. "Crap - my blood glucose is 250. Anyone need their phone charged?"

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[Fordiman]

True, but I for one am highly interested in an energy-dense, high discharge capable battery for cars. Something that can store a couple tens of kWh and let it go at a kW rate (stated in Watts, as I couldn't guess the voltage, and thus amperage resuired for such power outputs) in a package that's volumetrically similar to a regular sedan fuel tank (10-15 gal).

Re:2.59/battery, anyone?

[Fordiman]

Edit: hundreds of kWh, peak discharge of 125kW (135 Wheel HP at 80% system efficiency), nomninal discharge of 18kW (20 WHP at the same).

Obvious:

[corychristison]

If you can do it with sugar, what about Caffeine?

I don't know about you, but I get a lot more out of Caffeine than sugar. ;-)

Re:Obvious:

[c_fel]

Caffeine is not a source of energy, it's a stimulant. It only helps the body to consume energy you already have in reserve. So you cannot build a caffeine battery.

Re:Obvious:

[morgan_greywolf]

Sure you could. It could be a two stage battery:

Take Mountain Dew + Human Being = sugar from mt dew + sugar/energy from human being ---sugar battery process---> energy!

I'm tired. Time to go get more caffeine!

Re:Obvious:

[truthsearch]

So can we build a battery out of fat and give it caffeine to stimulate energy output? That would make for one disgusting battery. But we'd have a virtually unlimited natural resource!

Re:Obvious:

[MrCopilot]

So can we build a battery out of fat and give it caffeine to stimulate energy output? That would make for one disgusting battery. But we'd have a virtually unlimited natural resource!

We have already have this for transportation, it is called a Bicycle.

Re:Obvious:

[Rotten168]

They do have cars that run on restaurant oil waste [journeytoforever.org].

Re:Obvious:

[Eccles]

Sadly, even Australia seems to be giving us a run for our money, even with that nice climate and beautiful beaches: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6494117.st m [bbc.co.uk]

"Studies estimate that 67% of Australian men and over half of all women aged over 25 are overweight or obese."

Stupid.

[Spazntwich]

If people are bothering to create batteries run off food, why would they pick one of the least energy dense macronutrients?

At 9 kilocalories per gram to carbs' 4, fats kick the crap out of carbohydrates with regard to energy density. Strikes me as odd.

Re:Stupid.

[OSU ChemE]

Since TFA was a bit light on the technical side (and I couldn't find anything on the ACS site yet) I'm just going to SWAG a few reasons:

• The enzymes available (or that they developed) only work on sugar molecules; not to say they couldn't develop enzymes that work on fat
• Sugar is water soluable and water can be made relatively conductive; fat, not so much on either count
• Fat is has more energy/gram but fewer grams/volume, though 9:4 energy and 0.8/1.2 specific gravity means it's probably not an issue
• More plants produce sugar than produce fat, and sugar is generally easier to extract from said plants than fat (even setting aside corn syrup)

Re:Stupid.

[linguizic]

I believe the plant that we eat that has the most fat is the avocado, and those are expensive enough as it is with only a fraction of the population consuming them. That leads me to the following(kind of):

I assume that we will be getting the sugar to power these batteries from corn syrup as it is the cheapest supply of sugar we have available to us. Per acre of corn, if choose to extract energy from it, which would said acre yield more corn syrup or ethanol? If the case is ethanol than we have a problem. Having the food market and the energy market compete for corn right now is already driving up the price of corn in Mexico to the point that many people can't afford it to eat (which is their primary staple). However, if the yield from extracting corn syrup is greater than I wonder if it is great enough that the new demand created by energy consumption would still create an unwieldy state of corn prices. (I hope that made sense, my son daughter is currently screaming because I put her in time out).

Re:Stupid.

[dextromulous]

Hmm... I think I will go and see if there is already a patent on whale-oil batteries. If not, I'll just jump straight to step 3. Profit!

probably a matter of practicallity

[puck01]

Offhand, sugars are water soluable, relatively small molecules and probably easy to harness for their energy (the fuel mixture will readily mix to keep the remaining sugar moledules exposed to whatever catalyst and other molecules it is reacting with). Because they're simple molecules, there probably is only one major reaction required to split the sugars and obtain energy.

Fats are not water soluable, more complex chemically and thicker in general. I would think coming up with a stable reaction for the entire amount of fat in the tank would be difficult since they are not water soluable (you would need to mix them in a lipophilic solution) and they are thicker. I would imagine they would be more diffult to handle, especially if the idea is to make they reusable.

Then again, it been awhile since I've done any chemisty. Sounds like an interesting concept.

Way to go SLU (graduated from med school there)!

Re:Stupid.

[vertinox]

fats kick the crap out of carbohydrates with regard to energy density

Creating machines that could "potentially" run off fuel made from dead humans might be a "potentially" bad thing.

Of course to be fair, you never have to run faster than the flesh eating machines... Just faster than anyone else you happen to be with.

Adaptable to Hydrocarbons?

[Erioll]

Basically, hydrocarbons (petroleum, etc) are very sugar-like chains. Basically carbs, with less oxygen. So is this technology adaptable to that? Then you have the energy density problem completely solved (though losing the renewable aspect).

Re:Stupid.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't think so. I would expect that fats are a lot less efficient to make. Energy from plants is a lot more efficient to get than energy from animals. There aren't many plants that make fats, I think coconut is possibly the biggest exception. They may store energy more densely, but converting plant matter to animal matter is far less efficient than just using the plant matter.

I don't like the idea of using food for fuel or energy though. I'd much rather support cellulose to ethanol conversion because it generally wouldn't mean deciding between two very different needs, and cellulose is readily available and often just wasted in food production because it's in the parts of harvested of plants that are not food.

Re:Stupid.

[OSU ChemE]

I don't like the idea of using food for fuel or energy though. I'd much rather support cellulose to ethanol conversion because it generally wouldn't mean deciding between two very different needs, and cellulose is readily available and often just wasted in food production because it's in the parts of harvested of plants that are not food.

I agree with you halfway on this one. I think cellulose has good potential as an energy source, since as you said it's often available as refuse/by-product or can be raised as its own crop (grasses and such). But ethanol isn't necessarily the best end product. Converting the cellulose to sugar has been (and to some extent, still is) the big challenge. Once you have the sugar, it may be more efficient to use it directly in the fuel cells from the article, rather than going through the fermentation and purification/refining process to make fuel grade ethanol.

Re:Stupid.

[Radon360]

I seem to recall that someone made a similar fuel cell not too long ago that used ethyl alcohol to do the same thing. It also used enzymes. The trick was attaching the enzymes to conductive rods to extract the electricity. They were able to get it to work with a variety of spirits, including vodka.

Skepticism

[Shihar]

The idea is neat and has been around for some time, but the article fails to answer some pretty basic questions. The most important question is if they can actually get these batteries to pump out enough juice to power anything of importance. They said that they got the battery to run a calculator, but calculators are EXTREMELY low powered devices. The fact that you can run a calculator with a tiny primitive solar strip gives you an idea of how little power some calculators actually need. When they get one of these batteries (even a large one) powering a MP3 player, I will be impressed. Until then, I am deeply skeptical that there is anything to this.

The other issue here is size. Even if they can pump out enough juice, they need the batteries to be small to be useful in most modern applications. The batteries for most electronic devices need to very small. There might be a niche market for this sort of thing, but I am very skeptical it is going to make any sort of splash in the consumer electronics field.

Interesting possibility:

[Ihlosi]

The most important question is if they can actually get these batteries to pump out enough juice to power anything of importance.

Making electricity out of sugar would be a first step towards limitless energy for implanted devices (the other steps would be making sure that the whole process doesn't kill the recipient). Many of those don't need a lot of power (for example pacemakers).

Re:Skepticism

[twistedsymphony]

The idea is neat and has been around for some time, but the article fails to answer some pretty basic questions. The most important question is if they can actually get these batteries to pump out enough juice to power anything of importance. ...

The other issue here is size. ...

What about having a water cooler sized charge station in your home... dump in your sugars and plug in your cell phone/mp3 player/laptop to charge their current rechargeable batteries. You don't have to worry about power and size because the current rechargeable available take care of that.

Sure, it's not as good/eco-friendly as buying sugar based AAs from Walmart directly but it might make a decent interim solution that would help the tech move forward until it is small enough to just buy an "Engergizer S".

Better link

[Stile 65]

There's better coverage of the story at Physorg [physorg.com] (via Engadget).

Question: If the fuel cell contains enzymes, couldn't a 2-stage fuel cell be created that has cellulases, thus making waste switchgrass/etc. a potential direct fuel? Why would we need to even bother with cellulosic ethanol then? Or is this even possible?

Re:Better link

[OSU ChemE]

The bad thing about using cellulosic materials directly is that they tend to resist being broken down into sugar while they are in their raw/natural state. They need to be pretreated, which usually involves some combination of grinding, heating, soaking, 'steam explosion' (quick pressure release), to obtain a reasonable yield of sugar. If you don't pretreat the feedstock, you won't get nearly as much sugar, and you battery will be bigger because you're only using X% of the initial material. And if you use pretreated material in your battery, why not just convert the cellulose to sugar outside the battery, wher you can better control the reaction conditions and yields? Plus, the enzymes needed to convert the cellulose to sugar and the sugar to electricity may need different reaction conditions, as enzymes are often picky about their pH, concentrations, temperatures, co-reactants, etc.

Re:Better link

[MrCopilot]

Check the Tonnage to Gallons conversion figures and it will be readily apparent why it is not a viable direct fuel. There are also leftover bits (bits might be a small understatement) that cannot be converted unlike ethanol which is totally consumed.

Awkward..

[RobTFirefly]

Their thinking: If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?

A lot of things can "jack up" the human body, a limited amount of which I'd ever want to use as household power sources.

"Sorry mom, I'll have to call you back later, my battery's about to die. I promise I'll call back just as soon as I've shagged my phone.."

Re:Awkward..

[Red Flayer]

I promise I'll call back just as soon as I've shagged my phone..

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to sign up for your videocast.

So sugar gets more expensive.

[Maxo-Texas]

Just like corn.

There are some serious downsides to finding ways to use human food as fuel.

Re:So sugar gets more expensive.

[Profound]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=tortilla+crisis [google.com.au]

Re:So sugar gets more expensive.

[danpsmith]

Just like corn. There are some serious downsides to finding ways to use human food as fuel.

Yes but you are missing the upside of this one. Unlike corn, sugar comes from a variety of sources, many of which are cheaply producable or directly obtainable from nature. For instance, the battery has been shown to use tree sap. You might say, well there's not enough tree sap, yes. But there's an abundance of sugar. Corn is one thing, not only must you grow the corn but you must break it down in a specific process for it to become fuel. This, essentially, means that you don't need to do that process. This is the ability to directly use some food products as fuel without additional conversion. Given how cheap food production has become, I'd say that's not bad.

Re:So sugar gets more expensive.

[MrCopilot]

If taxpayers were not paying farmers extra money to make ethanol, there wouldn't be food supply issues.

Let me correct that for you. If taxpayers were not paying farmers extra money to make ethanol AND CORN, there wouldn't be food supply issues.

The real problem is they are getting double subsidies. Ethanol should be subsidized and some Foods should be subsidized but ADM and the few private farmers should only be allowed one exclusive subsidy. Choose Corn Taxpayers money per bushel or ethanol Taxpayers .61 per gallon. Not both.

This is why Expending all this energy for growing food to turn into fuel is wrong. There are non food alternatives. Keep watching this space http://egroculture.org/ [egroculture.org].

Re:So sugar gets more expensive.

[MrCopilot]

There are sugar and ethanol tariffs. Until they are gone, ethanol subsidies are stupid.

I don't think you understand the process and politics as well as you think you do.

Currently we import foreign oil for fuel. This is bad, mkay. You do not want to replace the amount used for gasoline with a different foreign import. You want to create it here in this country. If you cant grow "Sugar" here. You Subsidize the end product and keep the tarrifs to prevent us from buying sugar to turn into ethanol. Sugar is relatively easy to produce from everything from wood chips to beets. If you want to stimulate the industry you keep tarrifs and add subsidies. This gives incentives to ethanol producers here.

Re:So sugar gets more expensive.

[MrCopilot]

'Cellulosic' holds some promise, but until somebody is doing it cheaper than someone else can pump oil out of the ground, all it does is hold some promise.

Well I'm sure everybody is going to just jump on this problem and solve because you want cheaper gas. There is a role for the government here. To help stimulate reseacrch and development so we can all get cheaper gas.

Personally I do care where the fuck it comes from. Your trip to the 7-11 isn't worth another 9-11.

Wow I'm astounded at the cleverness and repulsed by how easy it is to bring up.

Further research

[lawpoop]

" If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?"

Next up, caffiene for your cell phone, and cocaine for your PDA!

Re:Further research

[tnk1]

Next up, caffiene for your cell phone, and cocaine for your PDA!

Crack for your Crackberry?

My clock runs off a potato.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

That's nothing - my clock runs off a potato. (e.g., http://www.unit5.org/christjs/Potato%20Battery.htm [unit5.org])

Sometimes I wonder if the Slashdot editors are really junior high school drop-outs...

Re:My clock runs off a potato.

[OSU ChemE]

The potato is providing none of the energy in that example. The galvanic potential [wikipedia.org] between the electrodes is what is producing the electricity. The potato is an electrolyte in (relatively) solid form. In the battery from the article the sugar is actually consumed to produce the electricity, whereas the potato isn't.

So not so much informative as misleading.

What does 'jack up' mean in your country?

[jeevesbond]

Their thinking: If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?

Generally, when people in Britain talk about 'jacking up', they mean injecting Heroin. So is the next news story going to be:

Scientists Powering Batteries with Heroin, Cocaine
Their thinking: If class-a [google.com] drugs can jack up the human body, why not electronics?

When first reading that summary I seemed to be trapped in the movie Trainspotting. Meanwhile in other news: Pete Doherty's been spotted outside a local shop after buying all their batteries.

Re:What does 'jack up' mean in your country?

[Stanistani]

>Warning: this post may contain British humour. Please take this into account when replying.

Oh. *flips through old book* Okay...

"Jolly Good, Old Bean."

Blood powered

[perrin]

Now, if only they can make it draw sugar from human blood and make the device and all its waste products fully biocompatible, they will revolutionize the parts of the medical industry that deal with electrically powered implants. Think artificial hearts, for example. Of course, lots of hurdles in that direction will remain.

Re:Blood powered

[Eccles]

Now, if only they can make it draw sugar from human blood and make the device and all its waste products fully biocompatible, they will revolutionize the parts of the medical industry that deal with electrically powered implants.

Not to mention the weight loss industry. "Burn calories while contributing to Folding@Home!"

Re:Blood powered

[shadowcabbit]

Now, if only they can make it draw sugar from human blood and make the device and all its waste products fully biocompatible, they will revolutionize the parts of the medical industry that deal with electrically powered implants. Think artificial hearts, for example. Of course, lots of hurdles in that direction will remain.

Indeed. Building in the vulnerability to direct sunlight, crucifixes/holy symbols, and being staked through the heart might be the only real technical hurdles before we're all under assault by robotic vampires. I can't wait.

kiss of death

[wes33]

Commercial versions could be ready in three to five years, the researchers say

enough said ...

I can see thousands of angry customers....

[pesho]

...trying to charge their batteries with diet coke.

Taking that a step further...

[jense]

What happens when after a few years of sugar consumption our notebooks get diabetes? You thought the finger-prick was a pain...

OH MY GOD do you realize what this means for dogs

[way2trivial]

Due to the necassary chemical reactions, now everyone will be able to blame their IPOD!!!!

Jolt Cola

[HTH NE1]

Finally, more than an aesthetic reason for Jolt Cola's battery-shaped cans [joltenergy.com]. (They're even Duracell copper-top inspired.)

Re:Jolt Cola

[grimJester]

How about Battery? [batterydrink.com]

What are the byproducts?

[JustNiz]

I mean, could you put regular coke in and get diet(low-sugar) coke out?

Tasty fuel

[Hoi Polloi]

I prefer my electronics to have that aroma that only real maple syrup fuel can provide.

clinically obese cell phone

[flaming-opus]

My cell phone got into the HoHos again, and now I can't fit that fat MF into my pants pocket.

Isn't this a fuel cell, not a battery?

[Radon360]

It seems to me that technology functions by putting a chemical (sugar) into the cell, and it produces electricity by breaking down the sugar. It isn't a directly reciprocating process like a lead-acid battery (i.e. you put electrical power back into it and it produces sugar). Its operation would seem to be more akin to that of a fuel cell than a battery, would it not?

Just what need, moody computing

[lawaetf1]

If my laptop reacts to a sugar spike at all like my body does, it'll overclock itself for the morning, the hard drives will ramp up to the next RPM standard and then by afternoon the speed stepping on the CPU will drop to the lowest level, the drive will spin itself down at every possible chance and the screen brightness will be minimal.

I've long held the belief ....

[CFD339]

...that where possible, taking a lesson from nature and evolution on how to most efficiently accomplish something is a likely best start. It won't always work, but as we get better and better at understanding biology we are likely to keep returning to the methods honed in competition over millions of years.

That sounds logical of course.

[CFD339]

Copying nature doesn't mean you do it that way for everything -- but for places where the task is very much the same, it likely will be that evolution will have found the best compromise.

At some point, we'll fully understand how plants mix CO, Sunlight, and Soil to produce carbon then get heated and pressurized into coal and oil. We're closer now than ever, but that doesn't mean we will do it any faster than the millions of years it took nature -- so no instant coal from sunlight on the horizon.

The scientist from the story

[roman_mir]

The scientist from the story was last seen driving his DeLorean at 88 miles per hour while an WV beetle minivan driven by alleged Libyan terrorists was chasing him through a parking lot.

Cyborgs

[Yusaku Godai]

There is a great deal of sci-fi in which cyborg parts (artificial limbs, sensory organs, even full cyborg bodies) are fueled by extracting energy from sugar and carbohydrates in special cyborg "food" consumed like normal food (usually it tastes pretty awful).

Obviously, this research hasn't succeeded in providing nearly enough power to fuel most artificial body parts, but I wonder if it's a first step.

So will it increase battery life?

[joto]

Or work in the cold? Or be simpler to use than plugging in my charger?

If not so, why would I even be interested? Fuel cells running alcohol, gasoline, or LPG, sounds like a much better idea.

So will...

[funwithBSD]

sugar effect it the same way as my 4 year old son? Give him a bunch and runs around a 4x regular speed for an hour, then throws a fit and sugar crashes...

Can we rethink this?

Awesome!

[uhlume]

It's about time "jack up" entered the scientific vernacular.

Idiocracy [youtube.com], here we come.

Yeah, why not electronics!

[dmccarty]

Their thinking: If sugar can jack up the human body, why not electronics?

Well I for one am really curious to see how they plan on jacking up my body with electronics...

Re:Sounds like a problem waiting to happen

[jimstapleton]

And electronics with corrosive/highly-conductive metal-ion/acid water are better?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even with the -1 redundant it will incur.

SEALED CONTAINERS. Last I've checked, outside of a chem lab I've never seen an open-container battery.

Re:Sounds like a problem waiting to happen

[jimstapleton]

hmmm, so you are saying that the cap leaks in the battery? That if you hold the battery at the right angle, lid on, the liquid would come out (and/or the lid will come open on it's own?)

Just because you open them, doesn't mean they aren't sealed. Tupperware containers are a very good example of something that seals that you can open trivially.

Re:Sounds like a problem waiting to happen

[jimstapleton]

Umm, you need to look up the definition of sealed:
Main Entry: 3seal
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sele, seel, from Anglo-French seal, sel, from Latin sigillum seal, from diminutive of signum sign, seal -- more at SIGN
1 a : something that confirms, ratifies, or makes secure : GUARANTEE, ASSURANCE b (1) : a device with a cut or raised emblem, symbol, or word used especially to certify a signature or authenticate a document (2) : a medallion or ring face bearing such a device incised so that it can be impressed on wax or moist clay; also : a piece of wax or a wafer bearing such an impression c : an impression, device, or mark given the effect of a common-law seal by statute law or by American local custom recognized by judicial decision d : a usually ornamental adhesive stamp that may be used to close a letter or package; especially : one given in a fund-raising campaign
2 a : something that secures (as a wax seal on a document) b : a closure that must be broken to be opened and that thus reveals tampering c (1) : a tight and perfect closure (as against the passage of gas or water) (2) : a device to prevent the passage or return of gas or air into a pipe or container
3 : a seal that is a symbol or mark of office
- under seal : with an authenticating seal affixed

The underlined chunk shows that sealed can be a permanent seal, as you seem to imply is required for a seal, however, using the highlighted chunk, just because you can open it, does not mean it isn't sealed. If it leaks, then you can safely say that it isn't sealed, but as you put it, only some of the non-specialty batteries car leak (I've not see this myself). A seal does not mean it's permanant or that it cannot be undone/redone

Typically batteries are sealed (permanently or otherwise)

Re:Sounds like a problem waiting to happen

[klubar]

Even the sealed batteries in today's car aren't really sealed... If you lightly pry the cap up, you can still refill them. The electronics in cars have gotten better so the batteries are less likely to be overchanged, and thus need refilling less frequently. Hopefully at the 15,000 mile check-up, the battery level is being checked.

Re:Nannobots, Finally !!!

[Profound]

Doesn't have to be nanobots. It would be cool to have little electronics that can run on your blood sugar.

Why exercise, when I could just plug a light into my body and burn off that excess carbs I had for lunch?

Re:Nannobots, Finally !!!

[gobbo]

Well, we getting so close to have real nanobots in our bodies.
One of the obstacles is how to power them.
The answer - make them absorb blood shugar!

Woah, slow down there. You've obviously never had a yeast infection...

Re:My thinking:

[drinkypoo]

How uneducated do you have to be to write an article about alternative power storage technologies in which you write the following?

Like other fuel cells, the sugar battery contains enzymes that convert fuel -- in this case, sugar -- into electricity, leaving behind water as a main byproduct.

Like, uh, what other fuel cells [howstuffworks.com] are these that use enzymes again?

Re:My thinking:

[stonecypher]

Like, uh, what other fuel cells are these that use enzymes again?

Well, this kind, for one [wikipedia.org]. Enzymatic fuel cells working on sugar are the norm for pacemakers, with close competition in radioactive batteries. We've had them working since 1981.

How uneducated do you have to be to write an article about alternative power storage technologies in which you write (something parent didn't know about) ?

Apparently not very. Generally it's not a good idea to pretend to be an expert in things with which you are not familiar.

Re:My thinking:

[crazyjeremy]

How uneducated do you have to be to use the term "jack up" when describing power systems to a technically-literate audience?

How uneducated do you have to be to assume the average slashdotter is "technically-literate"?

Hydrogen comes from water...

[tpjunkie]

Hydrogen's main source is water (seawater, ideally), not fossils, unless you're referring to the fact that hydocarbons store their energy in form of carbon-hydrogen bonds. But seeing as you mentioned bulky storage, probably not. Also, bio-ethanol (which is a bit redundant) is quite different from the "oil" you mentioned, which is bio-diesel. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What's the energy density of sugar?

[Radon360]

Sucrose (not glucose or fructose), as a pure carbohydrate, has an energy content of 4 kilocalories per gram (or 17 kilojoules per gram)[Wikipedia]. 1 gram of hydrogen has about 140kJ of energy.

Whether, in fact, this is a fair comparison depends largely on the efficiencies of the devices extracting this energy, as well as the amount of energy put into producing each of the chemical products for consumption. While hydrogen is more energy dense, can we produce it more efficiently than refining sugar from plant sources?

Using electrolysis to produce hydrogen would require more energy than 140kJ/g, making it energy negative. Refining the sugar from plant sources would likely be somewhat energy positive. However, most hydrogen gas produced today is steam reformed from natural gas. I'm not certain where that would fall out if the natural gas were derived from biomass, instead of underground petroleum-related sources.

Re:What's the energy density of sugar?

[ThosLives]

Refining the sugar from plant sources would likely be somewhat energy positive.

Only if you don't apply correct accounting. Total energy yield from photosynthetic organic material is always going to be less than (absorbed solar energy + energy to refine).

Or, if you use the flawed methodology, using pure solar + wind + geothermal to electrolyze water means hydrogen is 100% positive gain.

I think the flawed thinking comes from the fact that with things like oil, (energy to refine) is far less than (energy available), but that doesn't take into account whatever energy went into creating the oil in the first place.

Re:What's the energy density of sugar?

[BeBoxer]

Only if you don't apply correct accounting. Total energy yield from photosynthetic organic material is always going to be less than (absorbed solar energy + energy to refine).

Wow. That's a bit pedantic, don't you think? I think most, if not all, people who think about the matter realize that the "correct" accounting is the energy we, humans, have to put into the process and how much we, humans, get out of it. I'm not really concerned with how hard it is for the Sun to generate that solar energy. For the same reason, when a company does it's accounting, it doesn't worry about how much debt the Treasury had to take on to create the money which flows through it. It's not "flawed". It's the reasoning which actually gives useful answers. I mean, come on, are we supposed to say solar is a poor energy choice because 99.99999% of the energy generated by the Sun is lost to outer space?

Plenty of foodstuffs, not enough liberty

[jmorris42]

> Food is not a given for everyone in the world yet, so we shouldn't start using food as fuel.

Not a problem. There isn't any shortage of food. Think about it. Here in the US, even with the BS of the government meddling in the marketplace with subsidies, tariffs and paying other people NOT to grow stuff the US not only grows enough to make us all obese we export a lot of food. Same in most other civilized nations with the exception of a couple of very dense populations such as Japan. So why are people starving?

Lack of civilization and liberty. In North Korea they starve while across the DMZ life is good. Cuba can barely feed itself where it used to export. All it took was one asshat in Zimbabwe [sp?] (and a few million idiots to put him in power) to turn a nation from exporting food to having a few million starving kids with flies in their eyes for Sally Struthers to throw into our faces in desperate pleas for us to throw money down a rathole. Sure I'd donate money.. if it was for buying guns to overthow a despotic tyrant AND educating the people how to avoid installing yet another charismatic socialist.

And at any rate, getting a low level product like sugar is fairly easy, often with marginal crops or tailings from stuff raised for human consumption. Biofuel is pretty much the last word in green power, carbon neutral almost by definition, few exotic chemicals required, etc. Whats not to love?