'Instantly Rechargeable' Battery Could Change the Future of Electric Cars (sciencedaily.com) 150
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Daily: A technology developed by Purdue researchers could provide an "instantly rechargeable" method that is safe, affordable and environmentally friendly for recharging electric and hybrid vehicle batteries through a quick and easy process similar to refueling a car at a gas station. John Cushman, Purdue University distinguished professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary science and a professor of mathematics, presented the research findings "Redox reactions in immiscible-fluids in porous media -- membraneless battery applications" at the recent International Society for Porous Media 9th International Conference in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Cushman co-founded Ifbattery LLC (IF-battery) to further develop and commercialize the technology. "Designing and building enough of these recharging stations requires massive infrastructure development, which means the energy distribution and storage system is being rebuilt at tremendous cost to accommodate the need for continual local battery recharge," said Eric Nauman, co-founder of Ifbattery and a Purdue professor of mechanical engineering, basic medical sciences and biomedical engineering. "Ifbattery is developing an energy storage system that would enable drivers to fill up their electric or hybrid vehicles with fluid electrolytes to re-energize spent battery fluids much like refueling their gas tanks." Mike Mueterthies, Purdue doctoral teaching and research assistant in physics and the third co-founder of Ifbattery, said the flow battery system makes the Ifbattery system unique. "Other flow batteries exist, but we are the first to remove membranes which reduces costs and extends battery life," Mueterthies said. Ifbattery's membrane-free battery demonstrates other benefits as well. "Membrane fouling can limit the number of recharge cycles and is a known contributor to many battery fires," Cushman said. "Ifbattery's components are safe enough to be stored in a family home, are stable enough to meet major production and distribution requirements and are cost effective." For the visual learners, Purdue Research Park has uploaded a video about Ifbattery's "instantly rechargeable" method.
Re: (Score:3)
So, capacitors (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
" I walk 4 times a week to work out - if there was a company that made a shoe charger for wearables, I would definitely buy stock, and would suggest everyone here to the same. It is an untapped goldmine."
Americans use cars usually instead of walking and those have a 12 Volt charging gizmo right by your right knee.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is a spring dynamo generator in the shoes to recharge our wearables. I walk 4 times a week to work out - if there was a company that made a shoe charger for wearables, I would definitely buy stock, and would suggest everyone here to the same. It is an untapped goldmine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They would have to make it almost indestructible for somebody your size to use more than a few times. And thats not a poke at your weight(get it?) thats just honesty. My brother is about 300-400 pounds and he annihilates shoes. Hell i go between 190-230 and i can destroy a pair of work boots in months. good ones too.
Re:So, capacitors (Score:4, Informative)
A capacitor separates charge. A battery uses a chemical reaction. The speed is just a side effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, capacitors (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is a real battery. A variant on a flow cell (look it up) that has the novel ability to work without membranes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Say you have a 100kWh battery in a car and you want to charge it in 1 minute. You need to provide a power source capable of supplying 6MW. You need a cable capable of carrying 6MW to the car, which is going to require industrial equipment to lift because a person won't be strong enough, and wouldn't be safe anyway. The car itself will need a charging port and wiring capable of support 6MW.
Rather than concentrating on reducing charge times, which are already good enough for human beings, we need to concentra
Re: (Score:1)
What are you talking about? This is a flow battery where they will exchange the electrolyte to recharge. And charging times are a problem that the industry is working on despite your personal decision to declare it isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point.
This is a way that you can recharge the cell by extracting a "used" liquid from the vehicle, and pouring in a "new" liquid. Think of it as a liquid battery, where you swap out most of the battery whenever you fill up.
So the energy density problem is solved the same way as with gasoline - instead of a big wire pushing electrons, you pour in an energy dense liquid.
Re: (Score:1)
So it's a tank for a liquid fuel system, not a battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The liquid is never "used" its depleted of its electrolytes, in a chemical process that creates electricity. when all the electrolytes are used its "dead" and the liquid is swapped with new liquid that contains electrolytes. while the liquid that was extracted gets charged with electrolytes in some process(I didn't RTFA so I don't know what that is).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no Brawndo http://www.brawndo.com/ [brawndo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You need to provide a power source capable of supplying 6MW. You need a cable capable of carrying 6MW to the car, which is going to require industrial equipment to lift because a person won't be strong enough, and wouldn't be safe anyway.
As others have explained, this battery can be charged simply by replacing the liquid inside. But even if you wanted to charge it electrically, you don't need industrial equipment. You could make a cable that's not harder to lift as a traditional gas pump hose, rated for 20000 volts and 300 Amps to get your 6 MW. And if you could wait 2 minutes, and fill the tank half way, that could be reduced to 10kV and 150A. A well constructed cable would be much safer than the heavy gasoline spraying system we have
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of voltage and amperage is very dangerous and not to be trusted to the general public. Picture people that drive off with gas pumps in the filler. you would have catastrophic death involved with that. and fires also.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way you could allow humans near a 20kV supply.
Re: (Score:2)
20kV? Have you even heard of arc flash? For as flammable as gasoline is and as common as refueling is, gasoline is unbelievably safe. Diesel even more so.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a battery, it's a big ass capacitor that can take a huge charge instantly and let it our slowly.
Its just another flow battery. Nothing new here, except these guys claim their design is better, which every flow battery designer does.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want "fast" battery changing/charging operations to supplement, not replace, home/work charging units, design the vehicle for easy battery replacement by professionals with forklifts. Return to the old-style filling stations where we take care of your car in under 5 minutes, wash the windshield, etc while you order a latte and rid yourself of the last one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait.. you fill it with Brawndo?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is new? (Score:4, Informative)
It is a flow battery and the idea has been around for a long time.
The biggest problem is the nasty nature and quantity of chemicals used
Re: (Score:3)
Should make for some really interesting wrecks at least.
Re:This is new? (Score:4, Informative)
It is a flow battery and the idea has been around for a long time.
if only you were capable of reading the summary. :/
"Other flow batteries exist, but we are the first to remove membranes which reduces costs and extends battery life,"
Re:This is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I didn't see anything about energy density, which is the main problem with flow batteries. They're lower than Lithium-ion.
Furthermore, membrane-less flow batteries already exist. The problem is that they rely on laminar flow, which is basically impossible to maintain under any sort of acceleration. So, no. Can't use them in cars.
I call this a meaningless hype article
Re: (Score:2)
Here is what was mentioned in the video:
"it still has a high power density that's key"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (it's not easy to listen to because the music is crap and to high in the mix)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They mentioned power density, but not energy density. Power density means that it can output enough power to run a car. However, even if its energy density is comparable to Lithium batteries, that means you have to pump that much fluid.
The video mentioned water and ethanol, which would put its mass density near that of gasoline. Couldn't find energy density specs for this electrolyte, but if it's in the neighborhood of ZnBr flow batteries, then 200mi of range for a small car could mean pumping 1000+ pounds(
No prototypes yet (Score:4, Informative)
The new company named Ifbattery is still in it's infancy because they are seeking funding to begin making prototypes. So battery of the future is right because it's at least 10 years off at best.
Yet another "miracle" battery claim (Score:1)
Been working in the field of battery chargers or power management since I graduated with an EE degree in 1986, and I've only seen tiny incremental improvements. I have never seen any of the "revolutionary" claims actually work. Yes Li batteries are nice, but that was only have they took years of improvements to finally beat NiCad and then later nickel–metal hydride batteries. I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
They also apparently also suppressed the Mr. Fusion devices we were supposed to have in our flying cars by now.
Re: (Score:3)
The battery in a Tesla Model S weighs 1,200 pounds. Good luck coming up with a practical way to remove and replace a battery that weighs half as much as a Nissan Versa, not to mention a practical way to store hundreds or even thousands of them while they charge. Sorry, but offline charging of EV batteries is completely and utterly impractical.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk did a proof of concept not too long ago showing that this was possible. His robot swapped two model S batteries in less time than it took to fill up a ICE sedan.
Video here: https://youtu.be/H5V0vL3nnHY
Of course building out a traditional charging infrastructure is more important. Given enough time though I can see this as being a premium option.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can do it in a one-off demonstration with a single battery on a single car doesn't mean it would be practical to scale the concept up to a gas station that handles eight cars a minute all day. The power requirements alone would likely make such an arrangement infeasible, not to mention designing some sort of storage rack that could safely store that many batteries weighing more than half a ton each while charging them.
If you assume that in the worst case, you have one car coming in every
Re: (Score:2)
How would that work in practice with ten-year-old cars and batteries that have been pulled out and pushed in thousands of times? How many batteries per car do we have to have to make it work?
Re: (Score:1)
It was about the same speed as filling a gas tank. While it looked good, and worked perfectly for the demo, it has all kinds of problems in the real world, which is why it never went anywhere.
Commercialization (Score:2)
It sounds awful (Score:2)
They want to replace the need for home charging, which is half way there already in the USA, with going to filling stations every week or two. I suspect that this will cost more, both for the infrastructure and to the user. It might be better for the occasional long trip but it sounds much worse for day to day travel.
I don't want to go to a filling station. I want to do my everyday charging at home.
Re: (Score:2)
This. In fact, IMO, home charging is the main reason to get an electric car. Stopping to fill up once or twice a week is a pain in the backside, because unless you're the kind of person who always fills up on particular days whether your tank is empty or not, you'll always run low on fuel at the most inopportune times, like when you're running late for something. By charging overnight at home, you're assured that your vehi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is... indisputably so, in fact. Which is why if you live in an apartment or condo that was not built recently enough, or especially if you live in an older high-density neighborhood and the electric grid in your area just wouldn't be able to handle the load of a lot of people charging their cars at once, an electric car is just not going to be viable for you anytime in the foreseeable future unless you move.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
You could recharge your own electrolyte at home, while your car isn't even there.
It is a method to move energy as a liquid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"if battery" is a good name for them (Score:2)
If they can turn this idea into a battery (they haven't yet), then that would get them to proof of concept.
If that battery works for more than a few days without a re-fill, that might allow this scheme to work from a practical point of view.
If the electrolyte can be made to not be toxic, then they might avoid environmental issues.
If I had to guess, this is an SBIR shop, and not a legit company (they're going to be selling research papers to grant managers, not batteries to consumers).
It's still a coal powered car (Score:2)
In the USA we still get a large portion of our electricity from coal. Certainly natural gas and nuclear fission provides a good part of it too, and they have contributed greatly to our reductions in carbon output lately. The article mentions the potential for recharging the battery fluids with wind, solar, and hydro but wind and solar are much more expensive than coal and hydro is a resource we've already maxed out. Unless the prices of wind and solar can get below that of coal, or we build nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason you even dare to mention nuclear is that, in the event of an accident, the cost of any kind of cleanup has been externalized.
You talk about coal and nuclear as though they are viable alternatives. They are, if you ignore the fact that they rape taxpayers in a way that solar and wind don't even come close to.
So how about, for once, comparing apples to apples, then considering what we should be subsidizing going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason you even dare to mention nuclear is that, in the event of an accident, the cost of any kind of cleanup has been externalized.
What of the external costs of wind and solar? These windmills and solar collectors are made of materials we dig from the ground. Materials extracted with toxic chemical and tails. All kinds of heavy metals go into these things, and leach into ground water. Where does the cleanup of that mess come in? I know the answer, it comes in being out of sight and out of mind. These materials are largely mined and refined in China where they dump this toxic stew into lakes. The lighter stuff evaporates into the
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid me hitting submit in the middle of my post. I'll continue...
So how about, for once, comparing apples to apples, then considering what we should be subsidizing going forward.
I've thought about this problem for a very long time, perhaps for longer than you've been alive. The solution does not involve subsidies because the government only fucks things up. Get rid of the subsidies unless there is a very specific problem to solve.
The government subsidized a US Navy project to address the problem of having to ship so much fuel to ships at sea to allow the aircraft they carry to fly. They developed a process that
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you missed the memo, but unsubsidized solar is already cheaper than coal [bloomberg.com] for new construction. Coal is only cheap because the plants already exist.
Re: (Score:3)
As I stated in my previous post we see this cost of wind and solar being cheaper than coal is only true if the fossil fuel back up remain in place (the coal plants already exists as you point out). If the goal is to go beyond nibbling at the edges of coal burning and replace coal completely then solar energy will have to be cheap enough to make up for the infrastructure needed to account that the sun does not always shine.
This can mean shifting the sunlight in time with storage systems, in space through tr
Re: (Score:2)
One of the cool things about solar is that it produces power when people most need pow
This is a vanadium flow battery. Sigh... (Score:2)
one long sales pitch (Score:2)
"“We are at a stage in the company’s growth that we are looking for additional financing to build large-scale prototypes and subsequently manufacturing partners,” Cushman said."
Ifbattery (Score:1)
I don't understand the marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFS: "but we are the first to remove membranes which reduces costs and extends battery life"
The battery life of flow batteries is already ahead of all others which is why they are being seen as a potentially better alternative in grid applications.
From TFS: "Membrane fouling can limit the number of recharge cycles and is a known contributor to many battery fires"
As above the recharge cycles of flow batteries are already well above every other type of battery. And fire? Well the fact that flow batteries don't catch fire is one of their key selling points.
Is this just marketing fluff that is using buzzwords to try and get across? The big problem with flow batteries is their energy density at best is currently less than half of an equivalent lithium battery system. This is a far more important problem to fix.
Mind you I do like what they are talking about. One of the big problems with electric cars is the grid connections for fast chargers. It makes the highway rest stop model of petrol stations difficult to convert to electric. All you need is 3 fast chargers in use at once and you're using more power than the currently biggest petrol station in Europe, and many of the highway stops are in the middle of nowhere which don't lend themselves to easy electrical infrastructure upgrades.
Re: (Score:1)
Confused (Score:2)
Some practical questions... (Score:2)
Power is energy per unit time. And pumping unleaded into your Toyota represents about 15MW of power. If you have an electric car charging setup that charges as quickly as you pump gasoline, you will have approximately the same power transfer.
So what is the connector going to look like? Are you going to want to be anywhere near it while your car is charging?
Which leads to another question. Charging a battery is not one hundred percent efficient. Even with very efficient designs you are probably going to
Re:Some practical questions... (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a practical question: Why didn't you read, or understand, the summary?
What happens to the spent electrolyte? (Score:3)
Instantly rechargeable batteries are impossible. (Score:2)
A relatively small car battery stores around 50 amp-hours of charge.
That means to fully charge it, you would need to input 1 amp of current for 50 hours. Or 50 amps for 1 hour. Or 3000 amps for 1 minute. Or 180000 amps for one second.
The average house wiring is capable of carrying 10 or 15 amps. 3000 amps, much less 180000 amps, is beyond anything imaginable for a local charging setup.
Re: (Score:2)
A relatively small car battery stores around 50 amp-hours of charge.
At 12V, so the stored energy is only about 0.6 kWh.
The average house wiring is capable of carrying 10 or 15 amps.
At either 120V or 240V, depending on the country, so energy can be delivered at a rate of around 1.8 to 3.6 kW from a standard 15A output. If internal resistance were not an issue, you could draw enough energy to fully recharge that 50 Ah car battery in 10-20 minutes. Or with a dedicated 50A 240V appliance outlet, about 3 minutes.
A Tesla Roadster has a 54 kWh battery capacity (90x as much), so a full recharge would require at least 4.5 hours even with the d
Re: (Score:1)
Oh and since methane is a significant source of greenhouse gases I assume you want to kill every cow and pig on the planet and outlaw beef and pork.
Yup, because of that and also because they have efficiency of about 1/6th of a vegetarian diet. Take that land of of use for corn and you can grow grass there, sinking (huge amounts of) carbon into the top soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll bite - demonstrate this - with peer reviewed evidence please, not just "Because I say so" or "Everybody knows"
Re: (Score:1)
Japan happens to have the most comprehensive porn market in the world.
Japan also happens to have one of the lowest sex crime rates in the world.
I hope you can bring some facts to support the idea that pornography is "terrible for people".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and since methane is a significant source of greenhouse gases I assume you want to kill every cow and pig on the planet and outlaw beef and pork.
At least biologically produced methane is carbon neutral and short lived in the atmosphere...
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume that any gasoline ban would apply only to manufacturers... not owners. It would likely take no more than a generation for electric to be utterly dominant. Used gasoline cars would continue to be available in used car lots, but as more charging infrastructure is continually added to enable the installation of rapid charging pump facilities throughout the country, the demand for gasoline cars would continually drop.
I'm not saying I would advocate such a ban, only illustrating how, I think
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Need to ban gasoline powered cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be stupid and lazy. We will definitely have electric cars that are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to operate, and cheaper to maintain than ICE's in the very near future (this coming decade, guaranteed).
Any kind of mandates are just going to slow down the industry which is already on trajectory to exceed our ambitious desires.
YOU are not smarter than the people who are building these things, so stop pretending like you have more information than they do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't be stupid and lazy. We will definitely have electric cars that are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to operate, and cheaper to maintain than ICE's in the very near future (this coming decade, guaranteed).
HEY EVERYBODY! LISTEN UP!
Okay, not that I have your attention I have great news to share. It seems that all of our problems are solved.... Well, they'll be solved in ten years. But don't worry. You don't have to do anything in that time. We have it all figured out. Come back here in ten years, with your check books mind you, and we'll be selling planet saving cars for your garage and solar collecting shingles for your roof.
These cars will cost no more than your last car and be just as convenient and
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the French Academy of sciences has made it their official position that France cannot achie
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing goal with gas is good, but when the gas runs out, will you switch back to coal ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we switch back to coal?
Because it's cheap and available.
Do you think giving ourselves more time to find other workable and more economic solutions while very quickly reducing our CO2 output for lower cost is a bad thing?
Of course not. As long as you don't lose the sense of urgency, which is a real risk.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you don't lose the sense of urgency, which is a real risk.
Urgency is the main reason to replace coal with gas, it is the fastest and lowest cost move to make the biggest dent in CO2 emissions. But unfortunately many don't like that approach.
Re: (Score:2)
We have fixed or improved so many of our environmental problems already in just the last half century. It's not magic, it's steady technological progress plus regulation. You might as well be standing here saying unleaded gasoline can never be competitive and the only way to fix the lead problem is to ban all cars. Absurd as well as impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Need to ban gasoline powered cars (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the idea is to just replace the electrolyte. The electrolyte gets charged while you're not there.
Try reading even the summary first? (Score:2)
I mean, come on, all you need to do is read the summary to know that this is a flow battery - you recharge it by pouring an electrolytic fluid into it to replace the worn out electrolytic fluid.
Recharge speed is essentially as fast as refilling the electrolyte.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US it's about (38 liters) 10 gallons per minute, so It would take about 2 minutes (not counting the slowdown period for pre-pays).
But, I think you missed the point.
You would change the electrolyte, not do a rapid electrical charge.
Since you are reusing the electrolyte, you need to take the spent electrolyte solution out, so a "gas station" would have to have at least one holding tank.
The cool part is that you can keep it all contained because the connections need to be sealed and there should be very
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your meeting doesn't happen while driving, that seems a perfect time for the car to be charging. And if you can't make the one way trip without charging with a modern long range electric vehicle, you also probably can't make it without at least 1 meal break, and probably 2 bathroom breaks, which are also good times to charge.
Modern long range electric vehicles don't have a problem with range, and they don't have a problem with recharge time.
The only real remaining problems are:
- lack of charging infrastr
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can imagine it because nobody would be crazy enough to do that at 220v.
There's a reason that current fast charging stations work at almost 400v, and why future standards are looking at even higher voltages. If you double the voltage you halve the current.
Also, why pick 1 minute? that's much faster than you refuel a gasoline car, and everyone says that they are fast enough.