Graphene battery announced

[D Tibbets]

Perhaps this information might be useful for comparison. Typical electrolytic capacitors and batteries are compared (about half way down page).

http://www.johnhearfield.com/Physics/Ca ... energy.htm

Even with much improvement, capacitors such as claimed here, are only competing with regular batteries, not surpassing them in energy storage.

The questions are cost of manufacture, life cycle costs, charge- discharge cycle considerations; not some vast improvement in available storage capacity compared to batteries.

Again, knowing little in the field, I wonder if a flywheel or superconducting ring may make better storage mediums. Hot liquid salts is another used option (for solar thermal, not solar photovotaic).

Dan Tibbets

[nferguso]

The manufacturer's website shows a few rather ambiguous numbers. http://grabat.es/

[Skipjack]

The manufacturer's website shows a few rather ambiguous numbers. http://grabat.es/

What is ambiguous about the numbers?

[Skipjack]

Am I the only one how is somewhat annoyed by the fact that everything on that website is in Spanish? Seems unusual for a company that wants to succeed on an international stage.

[nferguso]

What is ambiguous about the numbers?

With respect to the "home" battery, what is the definitive meaning of "up time"? Also, is the power/weight density 3-1/2 times existing batteries or 7 times?
Also, with respect to the Spanish only site, I agree. It should have a parallel site in Chinese, particularly since their major partner is Chinese.

[Skipjack]

What is ambiguous about the numbers?

With respect to the "home" battery, what is the definitive meaning of "up time"? Also, is the power/weight density 3-1/2 times existing batteries or 7 times?
Also, with respect to the Spanish only site, I agree. It should have a parallel site in Chinese, particularly since their major partner is Chinese.

I see what you mean.
It seems to differ a bit from application to application (could be related to weight of the casings/structure?).
For the motorcycle they seem to claim about 1.05 kWh per kg versus 0.16 kWh per kg today. The last number seems quite a bit deflated. I am pretty sure that current state of the art Li Ion batteries can deliver at least 250 Wh per kg. But then, maybe they are comparing to a specific battery used in a specific motorcycle today.

For the bike it also is 1.05 kWh per kg versus 0.153 kWh per kg today. Again the "today" number seems deflated unless they are comparing it to a specific bike.

For the home storage it comes out as 0.5 kWh per kg versus 0.07 kWh per kg today.

[Carl White]

"Chinese researchers develop new battery technology"

A Chinese research team from the Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology (SIAT) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has developed a novel, environmentally friendly low-cost battery that overcomes many of the problems of lithium ion batteries (LIB). The new aluminum-graphite dual-ion battery (AGDIB) offers significantly reduced weight, volume, and fabrication cost, as well as higher energy density, in comparison with conventional LIBs. AGDIB's electrode materials are composed of environmentally friendly low cost aluminum and graphite only, while its electrolyte is composed of conventional lithium salt and carbonate solvent.

The research, published in "A Novel Aluminum-Graphite Dual-Ion Battery," recently appeared in Advanced Energy Materials (IF=16.146).

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 032416.php

[D Tibbets]

This technology , if it pans out would be attractive. Having increased energy density versus weight or volume is attractive. If cost and safety is also improved, then the gains are compounded. The amount of improvement does seem inflated. Wikipedia mentions Li ion batteries with storage densities of 100s to 300s of kWhr/Kg so a more conservative estimate of gain may be 2-3. Still that is appreciable, especially if the other claims are true.

One point is the graphene component. Industry is still struggling to develop methods of producing high quality graphene sheets in bulk amounts and at reasonable costs.

Dan Tibbets

[kurt9]

If graphene does half the things it is supposed to do, we may look back and call this the "carbon age". \

We discussed a theoretical thermoelectric material based on graphene last year. If it ever actually works (they only seem to have a firm grasp on 1/2 of the thermocouple), efficiency for producing power from heat could be up in the 60%+ range, at which point we probably would not bother with photovoltaics, we'd just let the sun heat up a black plate with a heat sink on the back. And then charge the graphene battery.

I'm not holding my breath, but this would be really cool and disruptive.

There are all kinds of applications for this capability. There is waste heat from all areas of industry that could be used in this manner. And yes, this is better than photovoltaics as the surface does not have to be facing directly towards the sun and will work, although less productively, in cloudy weather. Put glass on the top with a little airgap between and you get the same thermal solar heating you get in a car on a sunny day.

Weave it in clothes and you got something that can keep you want on a cold, sunny day.

Of course this is only if this technology is for real.

[choff]

Don't know if this battery design has been covered here yet.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/ ... e-changer/

[paperburn1]

Let’s say a conventional battery costs 100 quatloos. Materials, they say, are >70% of battery cost. Say 75%, which should be on the safe side. So materials are 75 quatloos, manufacturing 25 quatloos. They further say the cathode is 20–35% of the total battery material cost. Let’s say we save the larger number, 35%. Thirty five % of 75 = 26 quatloos saved at most by cutting cathode costs. Seventy five quatloos material minus the 26 saved is 49 quatloos for materials, plus the manufacturing cost of 25 quatloos = 74 quatloos total cost. That’s a reduction of 26%, not a reduction of “four times.” It’s barely a reduction by one fourth. If you include the extra power that still only give me 52 % reduction, very good but not what the article is claiming.

[Skipjack]

Let’s say a conventional battery costs 100 quatloos. Materials, they say, are >70% of battery cost. Say 75%, which should be on the safe side. So materials are 75 quatloos, manufacturing 25 quatloos. They further say the cathode is 20–35% of the total battery material cost. Let’s say we save the larger number, 35%. Thirty five % of 75 = 26 quatloos saved at most by cutting cathode costs. Seventy five quatloos material minus the 26 saved is 49 quatloos for materials, plus the manufacturing cost of 25 quatloos = 74 quatloos total cost. That’s a reduction of 26%, not a reduction of “four times.” It’s barely a reduction by one fourth. If you include the extra power that still only give me 52 % reduction, very good but not what the article is claiming.

I guess that assembly of the cathode is less work and energy intensive than the current one? There is more that makes the cost of producing a cathode than just the cost of the raw material, right?

[Crawdaddy]

Don't know if this battery design has been covered here yet.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/ ... e-changer/

Energy density is one thing. The number of charging cycles the cathode can sustain is equally, if not more, important. The use of organic cathodes in an electrochemical system raises an obvious problem of stability

I like these guys: http://nanoone.ca/nno_nr_mar31_2016/

[paperburn1]

Let’s say a conventional battery costs 100 quatloos. Materials, they say, are >70% of battery cost. Say 75%, which should be on the safe side. So materials are 75 quatloos, manufacturing 25 quatloos. They further say the cathode is 20–35% of the total battery material cost. Let’s say we save the larger number, 35%. Thirty five % of 75 = 26 quatloos saved at most by cutting cathode costs. Seventy five quatloos material minus the 26 saved is 49 quatloos for materials, plus the manufacturing cost of 25 quatloos = 74 quatloos total cost. That’s a reduction of 26%, not a reduction of “four times.” It’s barely a reduction by one fourth. If you include the extra power that still only give me 52 % reduction, very good but not what the article is claiming.

I guess that assembly of the cathode is less work and energy intensive than the current one? There is more that makes the cost of producing a cathode than just the cost of the raw material, right?

Yes, if their figure are correct then there has to be some other factor not fully explained. But even if I am right, there is still a reduction of 1/2 so it is not nothing to be ignored or laughed about. Lack of affordable storage is what keeps renewable energy off of the market. As I have often stated we do not have an energy shortage problem we have an energy storage problem.

[Skipjack]

Sorry for the necrothreading, but Grabat just posted this image (and several others similar to this) on their Facebook page. No more information was given and we don't know actual performance values of this "production"(?) model of their battery. Nevertheless, after a year of delays that made me think that this is complete vapor ware, this is a bit of a surprise. I would still recommend to remain skeptical and cautious. Who knows what the actual performance of these things is?

grabat_battery.jpg (127.54 KiB) Viewed 11583 times