- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or # to comment.
Is it also a room-temperature superconductor and a dessert topping?
After 12,000 cycles it breaks down into rainbow sprinkles
Well maybe this time the new battery tech can be real and gay!
However, this technology does not yet match the energy density of lithium-ion batteries.
It would be good if you actually told us what that energy density is…
Article says 47 Wh/kg. Thats around a third of LFP cells. But the power density is way higher. Meaning it can do enormous peak currents.
For grid energy storage, energy density is not the most important factor, but the power density is a great plus. It means these cells can rapidly charge or discharge in the grid, offering flexibility to buffer in any way that is required. And the cycle life is also way higher.
It sounds like a great option for hybrid vehicle batteries, in that case. They still use NI-MH batteries a lot of the time.
About tree fiddy
Ah said MONSTAH!
Technically, a copper wire is a battery that charges in (a very tiny fraction of ) seconds.
ahkshuallly, don’t you mean a capacitor?
Abstract
Downsizing metal nanoparticles into nanoclusters and single atoms represents a transformative approach to maximizing atom utilization efficiency for energy applications. Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide. Through KOH-catalyzed pyrolysis, the downsized metal nanoclusters and single atoms are embedded in a hierarchically porous protein/graphene-derived carbonaceous aerogel framework. The carbon-supported Fe subnanoclusters (FeSNC) as the negative electrode and Ni subnanoclusters (NiSNC) as the positive electrode exhibit remarkable specific capacitance (capacity) values of 373 F g−1 (93 mAh g−1) and 1125 F g−1 (101 mAh g−1) at 1.0 A g−1, respectively. Assembled into a supercapacitor-battery hybrid configuration, the device achieves an excellent specific energy (47 W h kg−1) and superior specific power (18 kW kg−1), while maintaining outstanding cycling stability of over 12 000 cycles. Moreover, FeSNCs displayed a significantly reduced oxygen evolution overpotential (η10 = 270 mV), outperforming the RuO2 benchmark (η10 = 328 mV). Molecular dynamics simulations, coupled with density functional theory calculations, offer insights into the dynamic behavior and electronic properties of these materials. This work underscores the immense potential of metallic subnanoclusters for advancing next-generation energy storage and conversion technologies.
Two important parts of a battery are how much energy it can store in a certain space and how much it weighs. If it is bigger and holds the same amount of energy that might be ok for a non mobile storage if it costs less, like a house. If it weighs more for a certain energy that wouldn’t be useful for cars and mobile things but might be ok for small things where the weight is negligible anyway. For cars you want a small energy dense battery that is light as possible
Abstract
Downsizing metal nanoparticles into nanoclusters and single atoms represents a transformative approach to maximizing atom utilization efficiency for energy applications. Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide. Through KOH-catalyzed pyrolysis, the downsized metal nanoclusters and single atoms are embedded in a hierarchically porous protein/graphene-derived carbonaceous aerogel framework. The carbon-supported Fe subnanoclusters (FeSNC) as the negative electrode and Ni subnanoclusters (NiSNC) as the positive electrode exhibit remarkable specific capacitance (capacity) values of 373 F g−1 (93 mAh g−1) and 1125 F g−1 (101 mAh g−1) at 1.0 A g−1, respectively. Assembled into a supercapacitor-battery hybrid configuration, the device achieves an excellent specific energy (47 W h kg−1) and superior specific power (18 kW kg−1), while maintaining outstanding cycling stability of over 12 000 cycles. Moreover, FeSNCs displayed a significantly reduced oxygen evolution overpotential (η10 = 270 mV), outperforming the RuO2 benchmark (η10 = 328 mV). Molecular dynamics simulations, coupled with density functional theory calculations, offer insights into the dynamic behavior and electronic properties of these materials. This work underscores the immense potential of metallic subnanoclusters for advancing next-generation energy storage and conversion technologies.
Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide.
Is this how Doom starts?
I think so long as you don’t hear Mick Gordon guitar riffs starting to chug in the background we are safe…
bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy
carbodaceous to the extreme, broheem
So the inventor gonna vanish and never hear about it again?
Well Edison is dead, but we do hear about him alot so I’m not sure what’s going on.
Speaking about scientists who find something groundbreaking and they vanish after.
Yea that’s the joke. Clearly Edison was killed to cover up this technology 😂
We’ve been seeing claims like this for years and every time it’s been total bullshit. 99.9% chance it is this time as well, but enjoy the thought experiment.
And yet we have somehow gone from rechargeable phone batteries that were about 3 times bigger than the phone I’m typing this on and had a capacity of about 500 mAh to where we are now with the battery that powers my phone being some small part of it and having a capacity of 3000 mAh, with only two major technology changes on the way. Meanwhile, we’ve been using the same technology for over a decade and the capability keeps getting better. I wonder why that is?
Those while are great are just pushing the tech in tiny increments. It’s still the same tech. Kinda like how ICE vehicles got better and better, but they still use non-renewable energy.
This tech we need, is the leap from ICE to electric vehicles…vs an old model T to a modern Corolla.
Well if you want to read about the many battery chemistries currently in use in EVs, there’s this article:
https://insideevs.com/news/782685/all-ev-battery-chemistries-explained/
As the article explains, there are several chemistries that have already come and gone, and the current models being sold use a few competing chemistries with their tradeoffs. Some of the up and coming chemistries are also already being mass produced.
So whatever it is you mean by “leap,” it sounds like it’s already been happening in the last 15-20 years.
An order of magnitude more power in the same form factor in 30 years isn’t a tiny increment. It was certainly a number of tiny increments to get there. And for those big leaps you’re so desperately looking for, it isn’t one little group sitting down together thinking how they’re going to do something. There are decades of research building out a number of tiny discoveries, combined by a group at an opportune time to put it all together so everyone can talk about this momentous leap that they, from the outside perceived as something new that sprung out of nothing.
Yea that again, doesn’t negate what I’ve stated. Tiny increments throughout a technologies life is great, just like ICE vehicles, but it’s tech from the 70s and we need the next leap forward.
Fusion power is based on the aeolipile and work by Marie Curie. Just because you don’t see the all the incremental steps connecting those devices doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
That’s like saying the wheel was invented thousands of years ago…you know what I’m talking about and are just being pedantic about it.
If I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Once upon a time, that giant invented the wheel.
Fusion power ain’t there yet though, bad example?
Fusion power isn’t commercially practical. We could make a working fusion plant right now. It would suck and provide almost no power, but we could make one. And the difference between the one we can make today that barely works and isn’t useful and one that would be useful will be some number of additional incremental steps between where we are today and when that would work. Which is exactly the point. And
yourthe attitude of, well we aren’t using it today, so nothing has actually been done, is what I’m criticizing, so thanks for making the point even more obvious.
This tech we need, is the leap from ICE to electric vehicles
Great news! I heard a rumor that they’re going to start making electric vehicles next week.
Xn
Perfect!
Sometimes it’s not pure bullshit, but instead intentionally misses details
Like articles going “new battery lasts 1000 years in one charge!” - which is true of Nuclear Batteries, because they give basically a maximum of 1 watt of energy per hour. (Which is useful for very specific purposes like a pacemaker)
Are you saying Grandma’s a WMD?
Careful, 'Murica is gonna invade your grandma to bring democracy to her organs.
Yes, yes I am
Nitpick perhaps, but watts are not a unit of energy.
Y’know, I had a feeling I put the wrong unit and then was like “nah… Sounds right”, I should have went with my first instinct
you can think of the units of measure as multiplying and dividing sort of like the numbers themselves.
So if the nuclear battery continuously delivers 1 watt…
In one hour it would have delivered 1 Wh or watt-hour, because 1W * 1h = 1Wh.
And it works in reverse. If it takes 2 hours to deliver that 1 Wh? That’s 1Wh per 2 hours or 1Wh/2h=0.5W!
The problem is that batteries must meet a whole set of other criteria as well to be competitive, for example cost and energy density. If they are not mentioned, they are probably worse in that aspect. Which just means they are still useful for some applications, just maybe not for cars, laptops or cellphones.
Abstract
Downsizing metal nanoparticles into nanoclusters and single atoms represents a transformative approach to maximizing atom utilization efficiency for energy applications. Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide. Through KOH-catalyzed pyrolysis, the downsized metal nanoclusters and single atoms are embedded in a hierarchically porous protein/graphene-derived carbonaceous aerogel framework. The carbon-supported Fe subnanoclusters (FeSNC) as the negative electrode and Ni subnanoclusters (NiSNC) as the positive electrode exhibit remarkable specific capacitance (capacity) values of 373 F g−1 (93 mAh g−1) and 1125 F g−1 (101 mAh g−1) at 1.0 A g−1, respectively. Assembled into a supercapacitor-battery hybrid configuration, the device achieves an excellent specific energy (47 W h kg−1) and superior specific power (18 kW kg−1), while maintaining outstanding cycling stability of over 12 000 cycles. Moreover, FeSNCs displayed a significantly reduced oxygen evolution overpotential (η10 = 270 mV), outperforming the RuO2 benchmark (η10 = 328 mV). Molecular dynamics simulations, coupled with density functional theory calculations, offer insights into the dynamic behavior and electronic properties of these materials. This work underscores the immense potential of metallic subnanoclusters for advancing next-generation energy storage and conversion technologies.
yep.
SHould be a blanket ban on miraculous battery technology stories until they are actually in production and proven.
Cause lets face it, if one of these miracle batteries using cheap, common materials with amazing capacity and longevity was real, it wouldnt take long for companies to jump on them.
Research into the lithium ion battery started in the 1970s and they only became common in EVs in the 2010s.
So yes, it would “take long” for companies to “jump on them”.
Electric cars existed long before the 2010s.
Late 19th/Early 20th century had about 1/3rd of all cars on the road be electric.
Long before lithium batteries were ever a thing.
Also, Theres a much higher demand thanks to the modern resurgence of electric cars, for better, cheaper batteries.
Which means that current car and battery makers have a much bigger incentive to jump on large scale miracle battery technology, than they did in the 1970s. Just like computers have much increased demand for ram today than they did in the 1970s. 🙄
Late 19th/Early 20th century had about 1/3rd of all cars on the road be electric.
Long before lithium batteries were ever a thing.
You want to tell me what the top speed and range of those cars were?
Also, Theres a much higher demand thanks to the modern resurgence of electric cars, for better, cheaper batteries.
I think you’ll find that the first modern resurgence in EV interest came in the 1970s, with the 1973 oil crisis.
If you research the history of battery technology I think you’ll also find that it hasn’t been static since 1900 with lithium ion popping up out of nowhere in 2008. In between we had things like nickel metal hydride cells, and for a few years before Li-ion became practical there were even some EVs that came with the option of molten salt batteries (called “ZEBRA” batteries) for extra range. Those things needed to be heated to 572° F in order to function. Nobody would have done that if they could’ve just instantly pulled a better battery technology out of their ass like you seem to think they can. By the way, the name “ZEBRA” comes from “Zeolite Battery Research Africa”, the scientific project that invented them, which was started in 1985.
Just like computers have much increased demand for ram today than they did in the 1970s.
I promise you that people wanted more computer memory in the 1970s.
While we’re on the topic of computers though, do you know what the current state of the art is in chip fabrication? It is extreme ultraviolet photolithography, or EUV.
The first commercial product made with EUV was released in 2019 (the Samsung Galaxy Note 10) but the first EUV demonstration took place in 1986 at the Japan Society of Applied Physics. Originally they thought EUV would be ready by 2006, but it took an extra 13 years to develop.
Notably a number of other technologies, like contact lithography, electron beam projection, ion beam projection, and proximity x-ray were being developed simultaneously, in competition with EUV. EUV won out in the end but for a long time people were not sure which would be the most practical to implement.
So yes, the pop-sci articles written about stuff like this are stupid, but the idea that things are fake unless they can move from the lab to the factory floor within a year is just not how the world works.
Team expects, may be useful, could be used, prototype, are currently investigating and so on. Cool piece of technolgy, but no even mention when they’d expect that to be commercially available, if it’s even possible to manufacture in commercial scale. Like many other new battery chemistries and technologies, it shows promise and makes a good headline, but at this point that’s pretty much it.
This is regular scientific hedging.
This thing, even if it turns out to be real good, it’s years away from being a marketable product. And it’s alright! It says more about sensationalism in scientific communication.
Eh, give em the clout they need to develop it further.
Well tbf this was a university lab which isn’t focused on commercial production but just trying to prove their experiments
They are likely working under grants.
That’s usually how it works. Why is that relevant?
Because grant funded work often seems some sort of result, contrary to parents claim that they were just “trying to prove their experiments.”
In particular if they have grants coming from any sorts of industry sources.
To be fair, commercial long-life nickel-iron batteries are already being sold for grid storage. The main reason they aren’t used more widely is they cost more up front.
That’s ok, because they still cost less than alternatives over the full life span of the battery.
The risk is that the higher purchase cost required will likely be wasted as new battery tech surpasses it long before its life is over.
So for now, it’s all about weighing opportunity cost, tech lock-in, and early obsolescence
And probably not at all practical.
Eeehhhhh — yeah
Aerogel. So not gonna be good for mobile applications— cars etc.
But might be workable for static applications???
Meanwhile my UPS taks 8 hours to charge and lasts 8 minutes.
UPS batteries are something i don’t understand either. Why have they not changed with all the new tech we have now? Is it just still made of the best chemicals for their use and to then be recycled or something?
Many portable batteries (i.e. campsite batteries) have a UPS mode and can be used that way. Much more expensive though.
UPS batteries need to be fully charged all the time. Lead acid batteries like to be fully charged. Lithium batteries need to be stored around 50% charge to have a long lifetime.
Lead batteries are also cheap.
And mine take ~30 minutes to charge. This person may want to replace their batteries.
They’re also trustworthy, reliable technology. Why change what isn’t broken?
Charge time depends on the UPS. The cheap consumer grade ones usually have a float charger that takes forever.
It’s brand new, I’m reading directly from the instructions, if it only takes 30min to change they should say that and it’s not by design. It’s a CP1500PFCLCD
It makes sense to me to have low power chargers on a UPS. Once your power comes back online, it needs to deliver enough juice to power everything plugged into the UPS plus the battery charger. A fast charger would be more likely to trip a breaker.
This is theoretically something sodium batteries would be good at right?
Aren’t they not as sensitive to storage voltages? They are almost a perfect lead-acid replacement. Plus a UPS is a great usecase because it doesn’t matter if it is 33% bigger to achieve the same capacity.
There are newer LFP portable batteries with <10ms UPS switch times that charge quickly and will keep the power on longer. They also have much longer battery life’s (3000+ cycles) , and LFP cells don’t degrade the same when kept at 100% like other types, although you should still cycle them a few times a year.
Bluetti makes some, the elite series has their latest UPS features. The non elite are slower and noisier.
Its all fairly new and have been improving year over year. For example, earlier models may not have switched back on if power was out for a long time and it fully drained the battery. Now some models can turn back on.
Edit: more details.
Yes, lead acid is very reliable and very recyclable.
Maybe sodium ion will be a suitable replacement.
The technology uses nickel and iron clusters smaller than 5 nanometers, meaning 10,000 to 20,000 clusters could fit within the width of a human hair.
By using these dimensions, the researchers increased the electrode surface area, allowing almost every atom to participate in the chemical reaction. This efficiency enables the battery to reach a full charge in seconds rather than the seven hours required by historical versions of the technology.
5nm nano fabrication will cost a fortune. this week’s cure-all battery.
Nano chemistry is entirely different from nano fabrication. I haven’t read the paper but most materials like this are made by mixing chemicals in a beaker and/or heating them in a furnace.
Yeah, that’s exactly what they do. You can click through to the original article and then the paper abstract if you want, but yeah they mix graphene and protein and heat it.
So a 3 megawatt charger can charge 50 kWh in one minute. That’s some serious power.
If it lasts 30 years, it will not fly with the industry and the concept of planned obsolescence.
Ooh, they’ll figure a way to make it clock out on the last monthly payment. One little chip will do, or just a few lines of code in the right place.
Someone will find a way to make it a subscription service that stops working when a certain MW is exceeded
We are heading for a subscription LIFE.
Did you ever see the movie THX 1138 (1971)?
The police stop chasing him when his “value to society” runs out.
My solar panels have a 25 year warranty.
Then a new player will become dominant in the industry.
Just make one large enough to power my house for 2 weeks and let me use solar completely detached from the grid. I’ll put it on the side of my house.
maybe in a shed off the side of your house? i would not want that fire attached to my structure in a failure.
It’s not lithium. This battery wouldn’t be a fire hazard.
if it’s charged it’s a fire hazard. i’ve seen nickel cadmiums go up in weird ways. we’re talking about your largest investment, prudence is warranted.
My house is charged. It’s a fire hazard.
It is waaaaaaay more likely that they’ll be an issue with an EV or ice car in your garage to catch fire than a storage battery like this. This or sodium batteries can’t have a runaway thermal “event”. The chemical reactions aren’t there for it.
That’s doable right now pretty much, in that the cost of existing batteries is in proportion to the other stuff you’ll need.
The sodium batteries rolling out to market right now should be good for it. Just waiting for them to get out and into use for a few years to make sure their isn’t any immediate unforseen bugs. I just want a 30 year battery and not a 10 year, and time itself degrades lithium based batteries quite a lot. They can make one that will last over 500,000 ev miles, but don’t count on it doing it and lasting 20+ years.
Call me pessimistic but I’m guessing this is only time we’ll be hearing about it
NIckel Iron is fantastic without any revolutionary improvements. Batteries made 100 years ago still work today. They are large and heavy so are only of use for home power.
The big “down side” which is the reason it isn’t commercially developed at large scale is that they last forever. No investors are going to give billions to a business that can’t generate revenue forever with a product that needs replacing every 3 years.
The government would for the military.
They are large and heavy. They are only useful for their virtually infinite life. If the military needed it for a few of their bases, they’d contract it out, a few hundred would be built and that’s it.
For example a few thousand ISDN adapters were built for the government military. But it lacked corporate support because the Telcos didn’t want it cutting into their profits. So ISDN barely existed for consumers. Consumers suffered with 56k modems for 5-10 years until broadband- which telcos sold for more than a phone line, were immune from all the competition requirements of regular phone lines, plus got TV programming profit.
the device achieves an excellent specific energy (47 W h kg−1) and superior specific power (18 kW kg−1)
I’m not familiar with this stuff. How does that compare to popular lithium batteries?
Looks like it’s more like NiMH than LiPo, but higher power than NiMH (which I guess lines up with their claims of charging super fast).
It’s more like NiCd but better power and more cycles (and no memory effect).
Poorly. According to a random Wikipedia query, commodity lithium ion is ~270 Wh per kilogram. So this is around 20% of that, according to the above.
“Excellent” may be in comparison to other byzantine specialty battery chemistries, but lithium ion remains resolutely enthroned.
Quite enough energy density and very good power density for stationary energy storage, with zero fire danger. Reasonably cheap, too.
Nickel iron is typically used for off grid solar energy storage. Weight doesn’t matter at all since the battery won’t be moved. The most important thing is lifetime. Traditional nickel iron batteries last for decades and can be refurbished.
It might be cool for storing solar energy for your home, though. We don’t need to always carry the battery in every use case
Home storage generally uses LFP which is around 170 WH/kg. 270 is NMC which is used in stuff like mobile phones where the trade offs are different.
Most li-ions land around 120-160 W-h /kg. So much poorer, but much cheaper on density
The specific power (power density) is kind of crazy though. I think most li-ions top out around 10kW/kg, any more and they will overheat and boil their electrolyte which usually leads to fire.
I looked around and found that lithium ion batteries will range from 100-270 Wh/kg and up to 10 kW/kg.
So these particular batteries are sort of an improvement, less energy by weight but better power if I understand correctly. Definitely not an expert.
this is one of the bigger changes in battery tech i’ve read in a while. i’m curious about their beef aerogel tho. i have no personal problem using it (beef is going to be used, regardless, so ethically we should not waste the beef we’re producing) but i would love to see this battery tech become vegan. in part so i can calm the little part of my conscious, and in part so we don’t have to have an ethical debate about batteries.
Per the article they are working on that, which is good since cattle farming is not exactly eco friendly.
The researchers are currently investigating the use of other metals with this nanocluster fabrication technique. They are also testing natural polymers as more abundant replacements for bovine proteins to facilitate potential manufacturing.
