UK Man Invents Aluminum-Air Battery In His Garage (cleantechnica.com) 212
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CleanTechncia: UK engineer and former Royal Navy officer Trevor Jackson began experimenting with aluminum air batteries at his workshop in the Cornish town of Callington in 2001. At that time, the electrolyte used was extremely caustic and poisonous. After years of experimentation, Jackson devised a new electrolyte -- whose composition is a closely guarded secret -- he says make it possible for his invention to power an electric car for up to 1,500 miles. What happens when it runs out of juice? You replace it with a new one while the old one gets recycled. At the beginning of the electric car era when charging infrastructure was nonexistent, the idea of swapping spent batteries for fully charged new ones was considered feasible. Jackson says such a thing could be the future, with his batteries/fuel cells sold at grocery stores and retail outlets. He says the process of disconnecting the old one and connecting the new one will take about 90 seconds.
[A]n independent evaluation by the UK Trade and Investment agency in 2017 said Jackson's invention was a "very attractive battery" based on "well established'" technology, and that it produced much more energy per kilogram than standard electric vehicle types, according to a report in the Daily Mail. A Tesla Model S can drive up to 370 miles on a single charge. Jackson says if you drove the same car with an aluminum-air cell that weighed the same as the Tesla's lithium-ion battery, it would have a range of 2,700 miles. Aluminum-air cells also take up less space. If that same Tesla were fitted with an aluminum-air fuel cell the same size as its current battery, it could run non-stop for 1,500 miles. The report goes on to say that Jackson just signed a multi-million dollar deal with Austin Electric, which will begin putting thousands of the batteries into electric vehicles next year.
"Austin Electric has three targets for the new batteries -- the three-wheeled tuk-tuks used for transportation in many countries such as Pakistan, electric bicycles with far more range than current models, and a program that will convert front wheel drive cars with internal combustion engines into hybrids by fitting aluminum-air batteries and motors to drive the rear wheels," reports CleanTechnica. "Jackson expects the conversion operation to start next year. He says the cost of each conversion will be [...] about $4,000."
[A]n independent evaluation by the UK Trade and Investment agency in 2017 said Jackson's invention was a "very attractive battery" based on "well established'" technology, and that it produced much more energy per kilogram than standard electric vehicle types, according to a report in the Daily Mail. A Tesla Model S can drive up to 370 miles on a single charge. Jackson says if you drove the same car with an aluminum-air cell that weighed the same as the Tesla's lithium-ion battery, it would have a range of 2,700 miles. Aluminum-air cells also take up less space. If that same Tesla were fitted with an aluminum-air fuel cell the same size as its current battery, it could run non-stop for 1,500 miles. The report goes on to say that Jackson just signed a multi-million dollar deal with Austin Electric, which will begin putting thousands of the batteries into electric vehicles next year.
"Austin Electric has three targets for the new batteries -- the three-wheeled tuk-tuks used for transportation in many countries such as Pakistan, electric bicycles with far more range than current models, and a program that will convert front wheel drive cars with internal combustion engines into hybrids by fitting aluminum-air batteries and motors to drive the rear wheels," reports CleanTechnica. "Jackson expects the conversion operation to start next year. He says the cost of each conversion will be [...] about $4,000."
UK Man (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In the UK (Score:5, Informative)
its spelt Aluminium
Re:In the UK (Score:5, Funny)
True, but that's literally only because Aluminum wasn't poncy enough for them.
Re:In the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Aluminum was also more common in the US from the 1830s until the 1840s, and was more common in the UK from the start up until the mid 1850s.
I'd also point out that "aluminium" is malformed. It's named after alumina, not aluminia. And there were plenty of "-um" elements at and around the time that could be pointed to (for example, platinum, molybdenum, tantalum, lanthanum). The insistence on everything ending with "-ium" is a later invention not present in early naming schemes. Originally the "i" generally came from the root word - for example, "magnesia" -> "magnesium". It wasn't part of the suffix. Some "i"s also got copied from other elements - for example, selenium was similar to tellurium, so they changed the root "tellus" (earth) to "selene" (moon). The number of elements that ended up with an attached "i" led to the later tradition of deliberately trying to ensure that they all ended up with "-ium", even if the root lacked an i - which was starting to take hold around Davy's time.
Regardless, I'm a purist; I stick with the original "alumium". ;) Hey, Icelandic shortens it even more, to "ál" ;)
Re:In the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Davy - who named it - produced the metal from alumina, not alum. Alumina was named after alum, and had already been named well before Davy - for example, de Henouville, writing in 1760 about trying to produce the metal from alumina, wrote: "if there exists an earth which has been put in conditions where its metallic nature should be disclosed, if it had such, an earth exposed to experiments suitable for reducing it, tested in the hottest fires by all sorts of methods, on a large as well as on a small scale, that earth is certainly alumina, yet no one has yet perceived its metallization."
Not like that would be much of an argument, if alum had been the root. That would be arguing for, instead of the suffix "-inum", adding an even longer"-inium" suffix.
The US alone makes up 2/3rds of the world's population who speaks English as a first language. [wikipedia.org] Other languages have entirely different words for alumium. As mentioned, in Icelandic it's just "ál".
Lol ;)
IUPAC recognizes aluminum as an acceptable spelling.
scholar.google.com shows 4 million hits [google.com] for aluminum and 2,6 million hits [google.com] for aluminium.
To me, it's a straightforward issue. Its discoverer never called it "aluminium" (contrary to some false histories that have circulated around on the internet); it was Thomas Young, who had nothing to do with his work, who suggested the alternative name. Davy's name was perfectly in line with existing naming schemes of the time (indeed, the very first named "-um" metal - platinum - lacked an "-ium"), and an obvious choice given the source material he was working with (alumina, not "aluminia"). I personally find it distasteful for an unrelated third party to rename something from what its discoverer called it, especially when the discoverer had a perfectly reasonable naming scheme.
But - as a compromise which annoys both sides equally - I personally stick with the even earlier "alumium" when discussing it in English ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In the UK (Score:5, Funny)
Thankfully, idiot is still idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
You're all a bunch of morions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to je Amelinium https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Another one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another man makes super secret miracle battery in his garage!
Sure buddy, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Informative)
He did not invent the battery technology, he designed a battery.
He has put down the grunt work to find out which, out of known battery technologys he got the best results from and used that. It's clearly stated.
Since it is a closely guarded secret it is not patented either, and probably not patentable as it is a known electrolyte. The same numbers were touted by Elon Musk for alu/air battery in Teslas only half a year ago too. They forget to mention you need to run electrolysis on the alu to convert it back from oxide though, and that is a bit more hefty than just recharging. Norway with all it's hydro-power can do that green, but don'ty do that off coal energy...
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says he signed a multi-million dollar deal with Austin Electric, so there's probably something to this one.
And Austin Electric is ????. Google shows a few residential/commercial electrical contractors in the US. Did I miss the big multinational high technology firm that is going to turn his invention into a salable product?
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even "his invention". Alumium air batteries [wikipedia.org] have been around for ages. Great energy density. Everything else, not so much. Including not being rechargeable. To "recharge" them you have to re-smelt the alumina, at significant expense and loss of round-trip efficiency.
Can people please at least look at the source of their "news", and if it says "Daily Mail" on the website, give it a good laugh and move on?
Re: (Score:3)
I could also add: there's about 1,5kg of CO2 emitted per kg of alumium produced. A gasoline car that does 6l/100kg emits 13,9kg of CO2 per 100km. A 250Wh/mi EV with a 1300Wh/kg Al-air battery - if its mass were 100% alumium that had to be recycled - would be 28,8kg of CO2 emissions. Now, I'm sure that the whole mass doesn't need to be recycled, but still, any meaningful fraction means a lot of CO2 emissions. The net reaction for alumium production is:
2 Al2O3 + 3 C 4 Al + 3 CO2
Re: (Score:2)
How any replaceable battery technology stacks up against exiting rechargeables both in carbon emissions and round-trip energy efficiency should be one of the first questions asked by journalists that cover this sort of thing. This one seems to have just regurgitated hype. While centralized recycling could conceivably capture CO2, the total energy efficiency is apparently almost as low as an internal combustion engine... or in other words poor.
Re: (Score:2)
The original source is Daily Mail
Read the author's note on the article at the bottom:
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you prefer; it's widely know that Daily Mail is the "UFOs kidnapped my daughter" publisher of the internet, so draw your own conclusions
So not really reliable, yet. Once they publish an article on bat boy [wikipedia.org], THEN we'll know we can trust them!
Re: (Score:2)
''if it says "Daily Mail" on the website, give it a good laugh and move on?''
Why, it's as credible a resource as The National Enquirer. If people wanted real news they would read theonion.com, America's Finest News source.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't claim he invented the battery, he claimed he invented a superior electrolyte for it.
TechCrunch has a better explanation than TFA above: https://techcrunch.com/2019/07... [techcrunch.com]
Quote: ... His specially developed electrolyte did not produce the hated gel that would destroy the efficiency of an
But after a lot of experimentation, in 2001, Jackson developed what he believed to be a revolutionary kind of electrolyte for aluminum-air batteries which had the potential to remove the barriers to commercialization.
Re: (Score:3)
The line between a fuel cell and a battery is a bit fuzzy - they're both chemical energy sources that produce electricity via ion exchange through an electrolyte.
I think the defining difference is probably that a fuel cell can be easily refueled, while in a battery the fuel is built into the device and can't be replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says he signed a multi-million dollar deal with Austin Electric, so there's probably something to this one.
Daniel Dingel took over $400k from Formosa Plastics Group, but never delivered a working prototype [wikipedia.org]. I just found out about that guy today because someone I know slightly posted about him on Facebook... But the point is, investment only means that someone in charge of some money bought his story.
The invention could also be real, but stupid. Or it could be real, but only useful as a stopgap until we get battery production up, which is probably the best case given the probable efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, if it is real, he should be looking for a much larger deal,.
Secondly, it's entirely possible that no money will be paid until the technology has been shown to be both technically and economically viable. Austin Electric may be taking on precisely zero risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to every other miracle battery that I've read about in the last 60 years.
Plus, if he actually did sign, it's based on delivery and the company testing.
Re: Another one? (Score:2)
Similar to every other miracle battery that I've read about in the last 60 years.
No, those sounded promising and this sounds like a pile of shit: 5x energy density of Li-On with no rechargeability?? There might be an application but it's sure not EV's unless they become disposable (there's probably a French company working on it).
Re: Another one? (Score:3)
Tesla was once working on outright replacing the batteries for a faster recharge at roughly the price of gas, got it down to something like 4 minutes or so. They ended up abandoning it, but if the battery could be 1/5 the size, that could simplify things quite a bit. Maybe less expensive, able to be done quicker.
I could see maybe a two battery system where battery B doesn't do anything until battery A is nearly discharged, and B makes up for any lost output until A is fully kaput, then you can swap A at any
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Insightful)
This falls into the Extraordinary Claim That Needs An Extraordinary Working Model category.
No it doesn't. (Score:5, Informative)
This falls into the Extraordinary Claim That Needs An Extraordinary Working Model category.
No it doesn't.
Aluminum-air has been around for a while. Aluminum is VERY energetic (which is why you have to refine it electrolytically rather than chemically), so there's nothing extraordinary about the mileage, energy density (energy/volume), or specific energy (energy/mass) claims. Similar numbers have already been achieved.
All this guy claims to have done is come up with a new, safer, electrolyte, making aluminum-air more practical for vehicles. He's been puttering with this for nearly two decades, and redox chemistry is not particularly arcane. So it's entirely reasonable for him to have found one.
Re:No it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but you'd think in 2 decades he would have at least built a single vehicle that runs on his miracle battery as a demonstration. Credibility goes way up when you're eating your own dog food, so to speak.
It's like all these out-there free energy / cold fusion / whatever people who claim to have the next incredible power source and they rant that nobody takes them seriously. I bet someone would take them seriously if they built a prototype and ran their damn house off it as part of them living their every day life. But for *some reason* they don't. Verrrrry mysterious....
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but you'd think in 2 decades he would have at least built a single vehicle that runs on his miracle battery as a demonstration.
So you're saying he needs a special electric vehicle to use / demonstrate this battery? Pretty sure any electric vehicle could use it, or anything that uses a battery -- it's a battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No it doesn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
So there's nothing extraordinary about the claims they're making, it's a well understood technology that is known to have all the advertised characteristics. It's just completely useless for the application they're talking about. I don't know about you, but I'm not spending $5000 on a battery (per the article) that I have to replace 2-3 times more often than most people change the oil in their cars.
Re:No it doesn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't sound very practical. Having to swap your battery every 1500 or 2000 miles seems like it would be quite annoying. You would have to go out of your way to a special location and I'm guessing it wouldn't be all that cheap.
Electricity is everywhere, it's much easier to just plug in right where you park and have a full charge next time you head out. For long distances a 20-30 minute charge every few hours is no real bother, and actually for commercial drivers the law says they have to have a break more often than that anyway.
I'll wait. (Score:2)
Not rechargable (Score:5, Interesting)
Aluminum-air batteries are not rechargeable. When dead they have to be melted down and reformed. The process uses between 80 and 85% of the energy stored in the battery. This makes them about as energy efficient as a ICE. in contrast, a li-ion has about 75% efficiency in the round trip. These batteries are a dumb idea and will not be used in EVs.
Re: Not rechargable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not rechargable (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means it is entirely stupid to put it in any vehicle that benefits from regenerative braking (yes, this includes aircraft)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which means it is entirely stupid to put it in any vehicle that benefits from regenerative braking (yes, this includes aircraft)
It's possible to use both: a built-in small rechargeable battery to take advantage of the regen braking, plus the disposable swappable aluminum-air batteries.
Kind of like how hybrid cars, which run on gasoline, have a small battery and can take advantage of regen braking.
But if the energy density of rechargeable batteries is high enough, simply recharging them is the way more effic
Re:Not rechargable (Score:5, Funny)
No, you're just short-sighted.
You have a dual system where the regenerative breaking produces heat which smelts and re-forges the aluminium battery in-situ. Boom, you fix the regenerative braking and the lack of rechargability at the same time.
I'll be waiting over here for my royalty checks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes yes, but you're moving the emissions from the tail pipe to a centralized location that can benefit from scaled scrubbing.
If it becomes "drive for 1500 miles and pull over for a 2 minute battery change"
rather than:
"Drive for 400 miles for a 5 minute fill up"
Or worse:
"Drive for 250 miles for a 30 minute recharge"
How exactly is that a bad idea?
Re:Not rechargable (Score:5, Informative)
Drive for 400 miles, refill in 5 minutes, at 15 cents a mile
Drive for 1500 miles, replace battery in 2 minutes, at 3.33$ cents a mile.
Re: (Score:2)
fair enough -- though i'd imagine costs would eventually go down substantially.
Re: (Score:2)
Drive for 250 miles, recharge for 30 minutes, at 3 cents a mile
Only if you ignore the initial cost of the battery, which is a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
But dont consider battery alone. Battery + motor compare with (IC engine + transmission + emission control + fuel tank ) cost.
Battery prices are still falling, the ICE tech has been as optimized as it could be for 100 years.
BEV batteries coming out of automotive use can serve a long time as residential/solar storage battery. So there is considerable resale value in an automotive traction battery.
Re: (Score:3)
While recycling some of the automotive batteries as power storage is somewhat viable, the optimal type of battery for power storage is not the same as automotive. You don't need a high
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even kid yourself on that 2 minutes figure. It would be 20 at the soonest. For one thing that brick of aluminum weighs almost 200lbs. That means a hoist or lift to get it in/out.
To work as a battery it'd need to be tightly sealed in a waterproof container (even more weight), likely in the same place as gas tanks, under the rear passenger seat. Either you'd have to drop and raise the battery from underneath or through the side of the car.
Don't think for a minute you'd be changing that in 2 min. You'd b
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla demonstrated battery swaps on the Model S at 90 seconds to swap. So only 75% of that 2 minute figure. It's all about the design of the swap station and the design of the vehicle.
The issue isn't the ease of the swap, it's the fact that you'd need every vehicle on the road to use identical batteries (which for such a large component would have severe design constraints), you'd need to set up a distribution network to ship t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases, EVs are charged at night, while only taking shorter trips during the day, saving a lot of those 5-minute fill ups. The 30-minute recharge is only something you have to worry about on long trips, and then you can combine it with a rest, bathroom break, and some food.
Also, easy pulling over for a new aluminum-air battery requires a massive investment in infrastructure. Who's going to sign up for that, when nobody has a car that can use them ? And who's going to build those cars when you can't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious as to how these batteries are recycled. It's aluminium plus air so the end product is going to be an aluminium oxide. I understand that these are generally quite inert, chemically speaking, and it's not going to a mechanical process, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your numbers are off. If re-smelting the aluminum in the battery used 85% of the energy you got from discharging it, you'd have a perpetual energy machine. Did you mean 185%?
Zinc air batteries failed in the marketplace (Score:2)
Zinc-air batteries were touted, by their maker, as the answer to power hungry notebook computers 15 years ago, but the marketplace didn't want single use batteries. This man is touting a single use £5,000 battery to go a couple thousand miles. He doesn't say how much it costs to get a 90 second battery swap. He says it'll cost 7 pence a mile, but why would the new battery be a fraction of the original cost?
Re: (Score:3)
He says it'll cost 7 pence a mile
Fuck, one Pence is more than enough.
but why would the new battery be a fraction of the original cost?
The claim is that a whole swap to make a FWD vehicle into a hybrid will cost only 4k. So the battery has to be a lot cheaper than that.
It's conceivable that such batteries would be highly recyclable, which would reduce the swap cost. But I won't hold my breath.
Re: Zinc air batteries failed in the marketplace (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The claim is that a whole swap to make a FWD vehicle into a hybrid will cost only 4k. So the battery has to be a lot cheaper than that.
But these batteries are not rechargable. So regenerative braking can't use them. So trying to make a hybrid with one is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Zinc-air batteries were touted, by their maker, as the answer to power hungry notebook computers 15 years ago, but the marketplace didn't want single use batteries.
A given mass of aluminum yields almost six times the energy as zinc (5.833+) when reacted to the oxide. (The ratio's a little lower for the discharged cells, because the end products are Al2O3 and ZnO, so the aluminum cell will have picked up more oxygen).
He says it'll cost 7 pence a mile, but why would the new battery be a fraction of the origi
Re: (Score:2)
Hand waving about 'recycling', probably hoping investors will conflate 'has aluminum' with 'cheaply and easily recyclable' without realizing that it's a whole different game to 'recycle' aluminum oxide.
So it's a Primary battery? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm reading the article and the comments correctly, this isn't even a Secondary (rechargeable) battery, but a Primary battery, closer to a 'D' cell than Li+ or even lead-acid? What a ridiculous idea.
That is correct - it is a primary battery. You can even make a battery in your kitchen. Lots of energy available. But like Zinc air batteries, the ones used in hearing aids, a one shot deal.
And "recycling" is closer to a eco-buzzword than anything anyone would do. Aluminum Oxide is hardly rare.
I'm a tad skeptical here. As noted, the new improved electrolyte is a "closely guarded secret", so tearing one of these batteries apart and analyzing it won't be too hard.
Meanwhile, going to Youtube and viewi
Not rechargeable at all??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you recharge it? (Score:4, Informative)
Aluminum air batteries have great capacity, but they're single use, like duracell alkaline AA batteries. When they are done, you take them out and throw them away. Aluminum air batteries have existed for a long time. They're quite simple.
Tesla lithium-ion batteries, when they are dead, you charge them and they're ready to go with 99% of the original capacity, for many recharge cycles. If you can't recharge the battery, it's mostly useless in the modern economy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't recharge the battery, it's mostly useless in the modern economy.
So there are a lot of shortcomings in this, *but* if the economics were hypothetically good, changing out a battery pack once a month wouldn't be too bad if the process/equipmennt is good enough.
Of course they are claiming operating costs at a touch under petrol cost, and even factoring in wearing out a Li-Ion battery it's more expensive than the energy+battery cost of those. This may be interesting for planes and drones, but it's difficult to imagine it being relevant to the auto industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Somewhere without cheap charging might be a good fit. Places like the far north where electricity is supplied by diesel at 90 cents a kw/h and if the one barge trip is missed, has to be flown in. Other rural areas may be similar.
Re: (Score:2)
There may be an application for these batteries, but they've been around a long time and nobody has found the application yet, and I can guarantee you that cars a
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, cant top off people will have to replace batteries with 5-10% just to be sure they wont get stranded.
Re: (Score:2)
Throw in a small rechargeable battery too. Handy for regenerative braking and could be topped up and give 25-50 miles range.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, cant top off people will have to replace batteries with 5-10% just to be sure they wont get stranded.
You could address that by including a smaller rechargeable Li-ion battery. That battery could also be used for regenerative braking in normal operation, then it could act as the reserve when the aluminum air battery is depleted. You could also address the by putting multiple smaller aluminum air batteries in the vehicle and arranging to use them sequentially. When you get down to your last battery, you replace the others. Multiple small batteries would also help you keep the individual battery weight dow
Re: (Score:2)
In the "Tesla" context, these might be handy as cheap secondary batteries with ~200-300 miles range, and a per-mile usage cost that's on par with the cost of 92-octane premium unleaded (ie, more expensive than normal operation... but not SO outrageous that you'd never use it unless it were a matter of life or death). The car could ship with the electronics in place and an empty bay, and leave it up to you to use it or not. If your primary (rechargable) battery ran out while driving around town, it would swi
Re: (Score:2)
LOL "Tesla" batteries. As if Tesla batteries are any different than other batteries.
Re: Can you recharge it? (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious...? I'm not even going to try and defend my statement, you can look it up yourself... Model 3 doesn't even use the 18650 form factor, for starters
Recharging? (Score:2)
. How is he going to recharge the aluminum without burning carbon anodes to CO2 and melting the aluminum in cryolyte at 940 degrees C? How does he deal with reducing the production of carbon monoxide and CF4, which is a potent greenhouse gas?
I doubt he has doing anything towards reducing aluminum, only oxidizing it. The article completely ignores reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Aluminum is incredibly wasteful in electricity, heat, carbon and fluorine in it's production
Yeah, but it's a lot cheaper to recycle than steel, because it melts at such a lower temperature, and because it retains its properties through the process. For structural metal (like, say, auto body) aluminum breaks even (by comparison to steel) once you recycle it just once.
How is he going to recharge the aluminum without burning carbon anodes to CO2
Now that's a good question.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is what bothers me about the article.
'This battery uses aluminum, and aluminum can be recycled', glossing over the whole fact that 'easy aluminum recycling' doesn't require reducing it.
I mean it's nice to have non-toxic components, but not touching on how to reverse the reaction is problematic.
Also whether it solves that battery types self-discharge problems.
There are a lot of downsides, though I could see how the weight-density could make it appealing for at least some more aircraft than LiOn to
Re: (Score:2)
One of the big aluminum producers is deploying aluminum smelters that don't emit CO2. I don't think there's anything magic about using carbon electrodes, it's probably done because replacing the electrodes and emitting CO2 is easier than dealing with hot oxygen.
Something new? (Score:2)
That nut has been cracked. (Score:2, Informative)
From the fine article:
Everyone knows that if we are really going to hit the Governmentâ(TM)s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the hardest nut to crack is transport.
We cracked that nut already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is a demonstration plant that produces carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels, carbon neutral because it takes CO2 from the air to make the fuel and close the loop on CO2 in the air.
This is just one example of carbon neutral fuel projects, there are many others in the works. We've solved the problem, it just seems that not too many people are interested in a solution that doesn't require massive shifts in the economy, or larg
Re: (Score:2)
We cracked that nut already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is a demonstration plant that produces carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels, carbon neutral because it takes CO2 from the air to make the fuel and close the loop on CO2 in the air.
This is just one example of carbon neutral fuel projects, there are many others in the works. We've solved the problem, it just seems that not too many people are interested in a solution that doesn't require massive shifts in the economy, or large government intervention, which is what we have now with electric vehicles being pushed on people.
sure we did, ever notice how these "demonstration plants" never make it to the big time, shit, a hundred years and we're still burning coal and hydrocarbons, and you people really think it's just going to suddenly get better ... sure buddy, keep dreaming
Re: (Score:2)
sure we did, ever notice how these "demonstration plants" never make it to the big time, shit, a hundred years and we're still burning coal and hydrocarbons, and you people really think it's just going to suddenly get better ... sure buddy, keep dreaming
Nothing is suddenly going to get better, which should be clear to anyone that thought this out like I have. I'll explain how I came to this conclusion.
The typical lifespan of large hydrocarbon burning machines is on the order of decades. For a typical passenger car they last about 10 years before considered worn out, considered a loss in some kind of collision or accident, or whatever. A large truck, such as a semi tractor, will be on the road for 15 years. Specialty vehicles that aren't run as often, l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. You are nuts. "carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels". Christ. People really are getting dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
It's spelled dumberer, dude.
Hold my beer (Score:3)
Re:Hold my beer (Score:4, Funny)
Did you know that before the crowbar was invented, most crows drank at home?
Aluminum burns (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with EVs after charging is mass. People driving ICVs seem to be fine with 300-500 miles of range. So if you're just going to swap the battery anyway, why wouldn't you make it smaller if it's that dense? A battery swap shouldn't take any longer than refueling an ICV. So it's a goofy-assed comparison regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Your grandma can pump her own gas or plug in her own Tesla. The 85kWh battery pack in a Telsa weighs over 1000 lbs. Even if you cut that by a factor of 3, is your grandma going to swap 600 POUNDS of metallic batteries every couple of weeks? That's asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
I presume that they'll either use a robot to swap the battery, or have an attendant swap multiple smaller battery units. Either way the only possible utility given the costs (energy and monetary) is as a stopgap until batteries become more available. They don't even have to improve, because the existing batteries already would solve most needs if we could build them fast enough. We know this because demand is so high that we can't build them that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
But how much cost will that infrastructure for swapping incur? And also how much energy is being used to shift heavy batteries around to the point of swapping and recycling. With gas, it's relatively light for the chemical energy stored and you don't have to dispose of the used gas - that goes out the tailpipe at time of use. This has all of the problems of switching to a hydrogen fuel cell based vehicle infrastructure with some additional new drawbacks on top.
Re: (Score:2)
But how much cost will that infrastructure for swapping incur?
Probably less than adding a gas pump or hydrogen fill station. It'll basically be a glorified motorized wheelchair.
And also how much energy is being used to shift heavy batteries around to the point of swapping and recycling. With gas, it's relatively light for the chemical energy stored and you don't have to dispose of the used gas - that goes out the tailpipe at time of use.
Good question. But the used batteries could at least go back on the same truck.
Someone posted elsewhere in this discussion that it might be useful for aviation, solving the range problem. I think that makes a lot more sense than putting it into cars.
Re: (Score:2)
if it was so freakin easy, we'd be doing it already
So nothing new is ever discovered or invented, and we can close the patent office now?
They've been saying that almost since it opened. Surprise: Inventions and discoveries keep coming FASTER.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most slashdotters are just technologists and are anti-science. They really don't know what exists, or is possible, so every whiz-bang huckster that comes along peddling something is seen as a visionary.