IBM Research Created a New Battery That May Outperform Lithium-Ion, Doesn't Use Conflict Minerals (gizmodo.com) 139
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: [S]cientists at IBM Research have developed a new battery whose unique ingredients can be extracted from seawater instead of mining. The problems with the design of current battery technologies like lithium-ion are well known, we just tend to turn a blind eye when it means our smartphones can run for a full day without a charge. In addition to lithium, they require heavy metals like cobalt, manganese, and nickel which come from giant mines that present hazards to the environment, and often to those doing the actual mining. These metals are also a finite resource, and as more and more devices and vehicles switch to battery power, their availability is going to decrease at a staggering pace.
As a potential solution, scientists at IBM Research's Battery Lab came up with a new design that replaces the need for cobalt and nickel in the cathode, and also uses a new liquid electrolyte (the material in a battery that helps ions move from one end to the other) with a high flash point. The combination of the new cathode and the electrolyte materials was also found to limit the creation of lithium dendrites which are spiky structures that often develop in lithium-ion batteries that can lead to short circuits. So not only would this new battery have less of an impact on the environment to manufacture, but it would also be considerably safer to use, with a drastically reduced risk of fire or explosions. The researchers believe the new battery would have a larger capacity than existing lithium-ion batteries, could potentially charge to about 80 percent of its full capacity in just five minutes, would be more energy-efficient, and, on top of it all, it would be cheaper to manufacture which in turn means they could help reduce the cost of gadgets and electric vehicles. As IEEE Spectrum notes, the group has revealed precious little technical information about their battery's chemistry, configuration, or design -- so those in the field are unsure if IBM has created something truly remarkable, or if they're exaggerating their claims.
As a potential solution, scientists at IBM Research's Battery Lab came up with a new design that replaces the need for cobalt and nickel in the cathode, and also uses a new liquid electrolyte (the material in a battery that helps ions move from one end to the other) with a high flash point. The combination of the new cathode and the electrolyte materials was also found to limit the creation of lithium dendrites which are spiky structures that often develop in lithium-ion batteries that can lead to short circuits. So not only would this new battery have less of an impact on the environment to manufacture, but it would also be considerably safer to use, with a drastically reduced risk of fire or explosions. The researchers believe the new battery would have a larger capacity than existing lithium-ion batteries, could potentially charge to about 80 percent of its full capacity in just five minutes, would be more energy-efficient, and, on top of it all, it would be cheaper to manufacture which in turn means they could help reduce the cost of gadgets and electric vehicles. As IEEE Spectrum notes, the group has revealed precious little technical information about their battery's chemistry, configuration, or design -- so those in the field are unsure if IBM has created something truly remarkable, or if they're exaggerating their claims.
Xnrgi (Score:3)
https://xnrgi.com/ [xnrgi.com]
Obvious question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Will extracting what they need for these cells from seawater negatively impact marine life?
Read a fucking book. EVERYTHING we are doing is negatively impacting marine life. Everything. People are worried about the forests. And obviously that worry is merited. But they are often times neglecting the fact that much of our oxygen comes from the sea. Sea level rising and displacing hundreds of millions of people suddenly becomes small potatoes when we can no longer successfully "breath".
Don't worry too much though, the history books won't exist.
Alarmist? Extreme? Maybe. But humans have historical
Re: Obvious question (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the oxygen content that's an issue, it's a CO2 content.
If you lock someone in a room and seal it up, cask-of-amontillado-style, it's CO2 poisoning that will kill them, long before they run the O2 content down to the point where oxygen deprivation would be an issue. ...Which has obvious parallels to our current situation, re: the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Read a fucking book. EVERYTHING we are doing is negatively impacting marine life.
We are already manufacturing these batteries? I didn't even know. As far as future things, your statement is inaccurate. For example, if we were to start adding sodium hydroxide to the oceans or extracting CO2, that would be beneficial for all marine life as it would counteract ocean acidification. The problem with blanket statements is they're always wrong. There is one thing blanket statements are useful for, and that is alerting others of the presence of an ideologue.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I really have to point out the problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity can do nothing right. Everything we do is horrible. We are killing everything. Might as well just off ourselves now.
I can't imagine going through life expecting the worst outcome for every damn thing. Time and again, the worst never even comes to pass. But, hey, doom and gloom sells.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just kidding there is no hell.
Unless you count the last days of civilization as we know it.
Re: Obvious question (Score:2)
So does arguing that a form of expression should be a capital crime.
Can't take you seriously. (Score:3)
Had you come to your views with deliberation, then you wouldn't use absolutisms. Those form in the face of ignorance and the resulting over-confidence.
Yes, in a strict physical sense, everything is impacting everything. At least inside its cone of causality.
But no, not "everything" is affecting [the planet] negatively. Not even remotely. So you can't use that convenient excuse to absolve your feeligs of shame and guilt.
You always have a choice. Between more harm or less harm or even doing something positive
Re: (Score:2)
Hell is for ignorant fucks like yourself, buddy.
I don't recall Jesus calling people "ignorant fucks". I think there might be a spot reserved for you down there too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Hmm, I think you have forgotten that combustion uses oxygen. Therefore as the forests burn, and fossil fuel powered transport continues to be used, then the oxygen in the atmosphere will be depleted. In other words, human life is equilibrium with nature. Any imbalance will always hit us in the end.
Also your survival strategy relies on using energy. Where is this energy coming from ?
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the problem of concentration. As the proportion of oxygen decreases, the difficulty of extracting it by breathing increases. Unless you're recommending that everyone use breathing devices that scrub out CO2 and increase the proportion of Oxygen.
OTOH, it would be a slow process. Just not nearly that slow. But we are talking multiple centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That "compensation" is via genetic modification. If you're proposing that, then I agree that would extend the period of adaptation capability considerably. How much I don't know, but considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the internet, so in answer to your question:
Many, many things.
Re:Obvious question (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM of course have a focus on portable batteries. Where research will really pay of is in fixed location batteries. House batteries, industrial batteries, distrubuted grid storage batteries. These batteries where size or weight has little impact but long life and recharged cycles have major impact. Want to save materials needed for portable batteries, simply do not use those materials in housing and industrial batteries. They can be quite large and heavy, as long as they are low cost and long life. Lateral thinking can provide good solutions. There is a real lack of research in fixed location batteries, lightweight, compact lithium batteries make no sense and are a waste of resource when it comes to fixed location batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is quite a bit of research that has happened and is ongoing for lithium/sulfur, thermal, flow batteries and the like, it just doesn't make headlines because very few people work in the power industry but everyone wants a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Will extracting what they need for these cells from seawater negatively impact marine life?
There are 320 million cubic miles of ocean.
Extracting a few thousand, or even a few million, tonnes of mineral will have a negligible effect, especially compared with real problems like AGW and ocean acidification.
Most likely any mineral extraction will be done in co-production with desalination plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can also extract some of the mercury while they're at it. Make an improvement...
Re: (Score:2)
Will extracting what they need for these cells from seawater negatively impact marine life?
we are about to start processing large amunts of seawater in city desalination plants. Mineral extraction could be a profitable sideline for such plants.
Neither desalination nor mineral extraction have to add anything to the brine we put back. The impact on marine life depends on how we redistribute that brine, avoiding overconcentrating it in one place. We also have the option of leaving all the salt and minerals on land, if necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The concentrations in seawater are so low that "profitable" is pretty unlikely. Putting mineral extraction equipment in existing (or to-be-built) desalination plants may well be cheaper than putting it at a random place on the shore, but that's a rather different question.
It is worth noting that a large number of population centres (where the water problems are likely to be worst, needing desalination plant earliest) have been sited where ri
Another one? (Score:4, Insightful)
At the rate we've been hearing of incredibly advanced new battery tech that outperforms everything on the market, I will no longer believe any of these stories until I'm holding the thing in my hand.
Fool me 377 times, shame on you.
Fool me 378 times, shame on me!
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Really. This.
If I had a dollar for every "breakthrough" battery or solar panel technology announcement, I would have a LOT of money. Yet we hardly ever see any of this stuff materialize.
Yawn (unfortunately).
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we hardly ever see any of this stuff materialize.
Hardly ever? I think you just mean never.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect you're not old enough to remember what batteries were like in the 1980s. You had to cart around the battery for your cellphone in a shoulder bag. (Of course the only people who had cellphones were executives and drug cartel leaders.)
Re: (Score:2)
>"I suspect you're not old enough to remember what batteries were like in the 1980s."
I was in high school in the 1980's.
We went from lead acid (super heavy/big) to NiCad (horrible memory, low power density, poor longevity... at least they were light) to NiMh (no memory, better density and longevity... but they were heavy), and then to Lithium Ion (light, dense, and expensive). There have been some tweaks to the three during those periods, but that is basically 3 formulations over a 40 year period.
In the
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.gsmarena.com/count... [gsmarena.com]
This chart is about energy density, but the article we're responding to is more about sustainability. It makes it sound like lithium-ion batteies of today are bad, which is becoming more true at the scale we are making them now, but compared to those NiCad and NiMh batteries of olde? Not even close. Today's are less toxic by miles.
Re: (Score:2)
basically 3 formulations over a 40 year period.
In the last 10 years, there have been dozens of "breakthrough" announcements and yet nothing really has changed much.
Really?
Compare the volume/capacity of a 1990s lithium battery with today's lithium batteries. It's about triple, it's MUCH bigger than the capacity steps between NiCad/NiMh/Lithium types.
https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:2)
The density means nothing if you don't have the materials to build it, or the money to afford it. What will enable us to put 1,000 cell phones' worth of batteries in every car, home, and power relay station will be the resource-efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
You're focusing entirely on one segment of the market. There have been lots of battery advances that were both significant and became dominant in their portion of the market.
OTOH, yes, most of the advances are tweaks...they show up, but nobody notices each individual one. And many of the announcements never make it to market.
Again it's the problem that journalists need a story, so they hype whatever shows up in their in basket. Often they hype a reasonable story into total gibberish. This one, perhaps n
Re: (Score:2)
Battery technology has been a constant slope of improvement. There hasn't been an actual technology breakthrough since the invention of the transistor. Everything today is still based on that original semiconductor.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but even the transistor wasn't a breakthrough in the sense that you are using it. It was developed out of numerous preceding crystal devices. The biggest change was the improvements in manufacturing that allowed the creation of devices with strictly controlled impurities. And that was also a development of existing processes with small improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we hardly ever see any of this stuff materialize.
Posted from you laptop with an ultra thin battery that looks chemically nothing at all like the Lithium Ion battery from 20 years ago and has several times the energy density to boot?
Announcements are actually very few. You wouldn't have a lot of money. At most you may be able to afford yourself a new laptop. ... Ironically one taking advantage of the very announcements you complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
Better still, if you had a battery improvement for every major advance announced, you'd have batteries capable of powering handheld vacuum cleaners, circular saws, and other such powered hand tools.
It appears that you've never strolled down the power tool aisle of your local hardware store.
Re: (Score:2)
That was kind of my point. Modern batteries do in fact have a dramatically greater capacity than old ones, it's just easy to overlook because we tend to compare this years batteries to last years, and so see only incremental changes despite the exponential growth curve.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how many people are incapable of recognizing sarcasm.
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything lives up to the hype or turns out to be cost effective, but some of what was researched outperformed the existing technology or was less expensive to manufacture and wound up in your hands. You probably just aren't aware that it was the 73rd article, the 125th, and 213th that were responsible for 3%, 7%, and 5% improvements as opposed to some of the others that either didn't pan out or turned out to be too expensive to manufacture even if they were better.
Re: (Score:3)
You two are both right. Yes, battery performance has steadily improved. But in the 80's the world was still mostly using NiCd or lead batteries, NiMH batteries for consumers only showed up around the 90's and Li-based batteries were not seen in consumer products until yet a decade later.
And if you check the Li-based technological improvements over the last 10 year, capacity or density did not significantly improve. If any, they got a tiny bit safer, partly due to chemistry and mostly due to protection circu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lead Acid, which are most common in vehicles today, lose voltage as they discharge. This is why a 12v battery is actually about 13.6v when fully charged.
No, it isn't. It's 12.65 to 12.7 volts (Depending on plate design) when it's fully charged. Anything above that is only a surface charge. When doing a battery/alternator check on a car with only your meter you turn on the headlights for a minute or two in order to deplete that so that you can get a true reading.
By the time it's half depleted the voltage can be as low as 12v.
Yes, 12V represents a 50% charge, and 11.4v is fully discharged. And you are not supposed to draw it down below 50%. Lithium batteries can be drawn all the way down to 20-30% charge (again, depending
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that "I have a wonderful battery that I can't show you" doesn't inspire confidence. But there is one way they don't claim it's wonderful: they don't say in their blog post it's specific energy is better in Li-ion. So it's heavy. They also say "this battery can be designed for a long-life cycle". Well, so can Li-ion. You just restrict charging to less that 100% - which of course reduces capacity.
They also claim it's cheaper, but that's almost certainly referring to the purchase price. More in
Re: (Score:2)
So you did not post this from your smart phone or laptop?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they DO come from time to time, but there's zero fanfarre or news, they just "magically" appear in the products and that's it.
I think they do it like that so the regular consumer don't just stop buying the products with outdated battery overnight.
Conflict lithium (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Conflict lithium (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly disagree! Want to fight about it?
Nah, you don't have enough lithium. Not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly disagree! Want to fight about it?
Which side do you want?
Re: (Score:3)
Cobalt is considered to be a conflict mineral. Whether or not this stretches the definition of "conflict mineral" to the point of absurdity is up to you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
tl;dr: Cobalt, Congo. You figure out the rest.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with cobalt is half the world's supply is in the Democratic Republic of Congo and a lot of children are used in the mining operations. So an organization is suing buyers of the mineral hoping to stop businesses from buying from DRC. I think this is ill-conceived. They should be calling at that country's government for allowing child labor in dangerous jobs. They should also be looking at the root problem. Why are children mining? Because the are a poor country and mining cobalt is one of t
Re: (Score:2)
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is not really ruled by the government and hasn't been for ages. Some is ruled by rebel groups, but most isn't ruled at all -- and it's a huge country, about the size of western Europe.
Making the country poorer is not necessarily a bad thing in this case, if it'd help them escape the resource curse. It'd be a short term hit to the economy, but it would make stability and rule o
Re: (Score:3)
And that's why cobalt is considered to be a conflict mineral. Anything coming from the DRC is potentially a fundraiser for war.
Re: (Score:2)
The children are not 'earning money for the family'.
They are slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Cobalt is considered to be a conflict mineral. Whether or not this stretches the definition of "conflict mineral" to the point of absurdity is up to you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
tl;dr: Cobalt, Congo. You figure out the rest.
We've always got Oz or the Philippines for Cobalt. Or Cuba.
Solving the Congo Cobalt problem isn't terribly difficult, and we don't have to give up using Cobalt at all.
Re: (Score:2)
TFS doesn't say that these batteries don't use lithium; in fact it implies that it still does use lithium. It says that they don't use cobalt or nickel. Various EV naysayers on this site have enjoyed pointing out that there's not enough cobalt available to to make batteries for all the cars and trucks in the world. So this should be good news, although it's tempered by fact that the term "FUD" was originally closely associated with IBM.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they're extracting boron from seawater to coat the graphite anodes to prevent, or at least reduce, lithium deposition and dendrite formation. This doesn't radically change the construction of lithium-ion batteries but does make them last much longer. Seawater contains about 4.6 ppm boron versus 0.001 ppm (1 part per billion) of cobalt.
Columbia U also announced research earlier this year that uses boron nitride nano-coatings in lithium electrolytes. Could be related.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several chemistries that are out there:
https://batteryuniversity.com/... [batteryuniversity.com]
But Lithium-iron isn't the one that is used for EVs. It is the NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) that is commonly used for EVs these days.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, considering that the US just sponsored another coup in Bolivia, home to the world's richest lithium deposits, you may be wrong. That's not what the article was saying though, anyway. Cobalt and nickel are conflict minerals, currently necessary for manufacturing lithium batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering that the US just sponsored another coup in Bolivia
Not really.
Re: (Score:3)
If you did even the most cursory of investigation into any of the coups and coup attempts in Latin America in the last 50 years you'd see the US's grimy fingerprints all over every single one of them. They don't even pretend to not be involved any more, since the tame mainstream press corpse will studiously fail to report anything that DC and Wall Street disapprove of. Hell, Sec. of State Clinton called the military coup on Honduras "restoring democracy" and then violated US laws to ship them more weaponr
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that the USA has been responsible for many coups in Latin America and is trying to achieve more. But Bolivia was not even a major focus of those efforts, compared to for example Venezuela and Cuba. Evo Morales entirely brought it on himself by blatantly defying the term limits the people voted onto him, and by making a farce out of his nation's supreme court by making them claim that term limits violated Evo's human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
https://sciencing.com/what-are... [sciencing.com]
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/n... [usgs.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But cobalt is ...
Re: (Score:3)
The word "conflict" does not ipso facto require fighting among "state" actors. It can also include local enslavement of people by local or regional criminals, often with the either implicit or explicit support of local "government" actors who are usually in on the deal. The sort that cut off hands and arms of the people they enslave that don't work hard or long enough.
But you already know that.
Troll...
Can be extracted from seawater (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of things can be extracted from seawater if you put enough energy into it. Doesn't necessarily make it cost effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Cobalt, manganese, and nickel, for instance [stanford.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
If you take the two most prevalent metals you have a combination that works for batteries:
Sodium Chloride and Magnesium.
It's not even a new technology, and has been exploited commercially in the past (BA-4386)
Theoretical a magnesium-battery has a higher volumetric energy-density than lithium, but it's much heavier. Unlike a primary battery (the non-chargeable kind) a usable rechargeable battery is hard to make, so perhaps that is the breakthrough IBM claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power isn't free - you still have to buy the panels and the associated cabling/inverters.
It gets close to free if you just use the sun to produce salt by evaporating seawater.
their availability is going to decrease? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cost of separation, recovery, selling back... vs cost of what a lord of war can offer new...
That's not strictly the only reason. Often the cost of the operation (either recycling or mining new) is proportional to the amount of energy needed. Recycling requires melting and processing materials often heating them several different times or for extended periods of time. Processing the raw ore might require less processing. So cost while not exactly equals energy, there are parallels so sometimes the cheap option also means less energy required and often less CO2. Its not always true but sometime
Is it just me ? (Score:3)
... or have you also noticed an upsurge in reports like this, where so-and-so makes some extraordinary claim that they invented the best thing ever, but there are no technical details. In this case, the lack of technically relevant information is extreme.
The post states: "the group has revealed precious little technical information about their battery's chemistry, configuration, or design -- so those in the field are unsure if IBM has created something truly remarkable, or if they're exaggerating their claims"
I understand why modern internet "journalists", having a slow news day, are publishing all kinds of unsubstantiated drivel - I don't agree or respect, but I get why they need to get ink on screen. What I don't understand is why a company like IBM wants to leak such things. Is it to create buzz about the company, artificially boost stock prices, or some other form of self-aggrandizement? Are they taunting competition? Are they failing to keep loose lips quiet? Are they leaking secrets or betraying their hand? Is it just flim flam and vaporware?
If this is real, is there a reason for such a minimalist press release? Or is it just more crappy internet "journalism"? Any ideas or explanations?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't new, turning something that works in a lab into a commercially viable product is really hard and many just don't make it. For ibm I'll just guess that they want to be associated with research that has a positive connotation, so announcing something that isn't yet a finished product is simply part of branding. Some lesser known companies/researchers might be looking for Investors, but i don't think that's the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to pump up the stock price before end-of-year stock options are granted to the executives.
I am still holing my breath (Score:2)
And solar cells.
And flying cars.
Re: (Score:2)
The main breakthroughs have been in the area of reducing manufacturing costs.
Marketing BS (Score:4, Insightful)
"Free of heavy metals" Um...lithium is not a heavy metal.
"Able to be extracted from seawater" Um...damned near anything can be extracted from seawater. It's a question of concentration and cost.
Until they say what materials they are using, this is just marketing BS.
Re: (Score:2)
"Free of heavy metals" Um...lithium is not a heavy metal.
Um...cobalt and nickel are heavy metals, as mentioned by TFA 1. ("The active cathode materials tend to cost less because they are free of cobalt, nickel, and other heavy metals.")
Hush now.
I see (Score:2)
"so those in the field are unsure if IBM has created something truly remarkable, or if they're exaggerating their claims."
IOW, it's like all the other 2647 battery breakthroughs reported here the last 10 years.
When (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, that's fair. But we all know about things that look promising in the lab but for one reason or another just don't make the cut.
In particular, they need to test the living crap out of the things. Thousands of charge/discharge cycles at various charge/discharge rates. At both cold and hot temperatures. Does the performance degrade, and if so, how fast? Is the capacity reduced in extremely cold temperatures (think some place like Winnipeg)? If so, how much? What about extremely hot climates (think P
I hate that term (Score:2)
Is there any mineral useful to man that was never a subject of conflict at some time by some warring tribe?
Re: (Score:2)
Patent law? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not an electrolyte swap instead of charge? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not flashy, since they're not practical for cars. Power companies don't take out full page ads in the New York Times like car companies do, so their product doesn't get the publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
They are still quite expensive. That's part of the reason that there isn't much movement in this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the electrolyte isn't the part that holds the charge. It's merely a vehicle to allow electron transfer between the cathode and electrode. So if you take a spent LiIon battery and replace the electrolyte ... you still have a battery that's just as uncharged.
Re: (Score:2)
It also implies something like 600kW charging rates or higher. The fastest charging stations that are out there now are 350kW, but to achieve this they supply 800V. Most EVs out there now use 400V charging, but there is talk of moving to 800V to support faster charging (without melting the cables).
I would add that utilities *really* do not like loads this large switching on and off.