Printable Batteries Should Arrive Next Year 92
FullBandwidth writes "Paper-thin batteries that can be printed onto greeting cards or other flexible substrates have been demonstrated at Fraunhofer Research Institution for Electronic Nano Systems in Germany. The batteries have a relatively short life span, as the anode and cathode materials dissipate over time. However, they contain no hazardous materials."
Aging and leakage (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem with aging materials is their propensity to leak. Take your mother, for example. When I first met her, she was in her 60's and had an ass like a drum. But after a decade of giving her the old backdoor to and fro, she now leaks like a sieve. I'd recommend taking her to get fitted for a colostomy bag, but that's your family's business, not mine.
So too with batteries. As they age and rust, the internal chemicals are liable to leak and cause serious harm to the environment. There really isn't any good way to dispose of these batteries that doesn't come at great cost or cause chemical contamination.
This development using organic compounds and no harmful lead or mercury is a godsend for those of us in the environmental movement. It has been a source of great consternation that greeting cards and other miniature throw-away gadgets have contained batteries with harmful chemicals, and now that seems to be a thing of the past.
It also has the side effect of making the card itself less bulky, so not only are you saving the environment by not polluting the groundwater, you're saving precious resources by buying products made of lighter materials.
Imagine a stack of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
(and it'll be posted on this site and we'll all be gawking at it and making jokes about Beowulf clusters of batteries, ad infinitum, ad nauseam)
Re:Fantastic! (Score:3, Insightful)
You could just get your significant other a netbook with a video file on it, captain yesterday.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Energy, woo! (Score:3, Insightful)
batteries are far more useful than ink, therefore it will be $4400.00 per gallon thank you very much. And you will pay because you are suckers.
me I gave up printers a 8 years ago when i realized I wasted more ink than I used. Now when i do need the rare item printed I take it to work, or use someone else's.
Re:Free Energy, woo! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Free Energy, woo! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right: I would say that inkjet printers do have a far cheaper upfront cost. One store would even give me a low end inkjet when I bought 2 ink cartridges that totalled over $50.
However, for the $30 an inkjet cartridge costs, I get about 100-200 pages. For the $65 a toner cartridge to a very low end HP laser printer, I can get 2500 or so pages, more if I bother to shake the toner cartridge. There is a big difference between three cents a page and 10-20 cents a page. To boot, with a laser printer, there is no streaking, no clogged nozzles, no wasting of ink on clean cycles, and no waste of ink. I can either use a laser printer once a month, or once a day. The toner will be used at the same rate, compared to ink which dries up and has to be cleaned off the heads.
Best results? Have both. I have an all in one inkjet I use for photo printing because it can print to photo paper. I also have a black and white laser printer for larger jobs.