Proton: lithium-free batteries that could change the world

[izentrop]

A team of Australian researchers is developing a rechargeable lithium-free battery. This metal, both rare and expensive, would be replaced by two elements found in abundance in nature: water and carbon.

It's not ready yet, but still promising http://www.clubic.com/energie-renouvela ... monde.html
https://www.generation-nt.com/batteries ... 52035.html

[phil53]

The trees do that very well is the wood
Hi hi sorry I could not stop myself

[ENERC]

A team of Australian researchers is developing a rechargeable lithium-free battery. This metal, both rare and expensive, would be replaced by two elements found in abundance in nature: water and carbon.
Learn more about inventions, innovations / proton-the-battery-free lithium-who-could-change-the-world-t15614.html # ucPgkMtxH0JtexcB.99

The problem is not lithium.


If it is to replace lithium with more graphite ... it is not gained in terms of cost. Lithium is only 50% more expensive than graphite (at least currently). And with a release of H2, it is not for embedded.

What is true, however, is that for stationary storage, mass density matters little. For stationary, 10 kWh useful / ton is quite acceptable as long as it remains small. 10 kWh usable per ton is what we have with lead type batteries OPZs designed to last 20 years. (This is 40 kWh per ton, but only 25% are usable if we want the battery to last).

If one wants to tend towards cheap stationary storage, it is necessary to avoid at most Cobalt, Lithium, Nickel and graphite.

Personally, I think that for transport we will stay for a long time on Lithium-Ion or Sodium-Ion. Batteries with high energy density and very high power are needed.
On the stationary, we will be more on organic flow batteries: two storage tanks and a trading area.
If the Proton battery is cheap to manufacture, it has its place in stationary. No chance in mobility: the density is proportional to the square of the tension, and with water one is limited to 1,23V against 4,2V for the Lithium.

[izentrop]

Cobalt has increased since https://investir.lesechos.fr/cours/mati ... ,opid.html

the density is proportional to the square of the voltage, and with water we are limited to 1,23V against 4,2V for Lithium.

source?
Not seem to be confirmed https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulat ... chnologies[9]

[Eric DUPONT]

at the level of the nitrogen ca remains stable. we still have the right to breathe freely.

[ENERC]

source?

The energy is proportional to U. Q
The charge Q is C x U
For a given capacity, the energy increases about the square of the voltage.
This is true for a capacitor (1 / 2 C * U * U), and more or less similar for a battery.

[Eric DUPONT]

in general, it is 10 wh per liter of water, ie 15 times less than liquid nitrogen

[izentrop]

Hola! the generalities with the ladle do not lead to anything concrete.

For a given capacity, the energy increases about the square of the voltage.
This is true for a capacitor (1 / 2 C * U * U), and more or less similar for a battery.

For the capacitor, the capacity is fixed, but for a battery, it is much more empirical and for the liquid nitrogen it is still something else and I prefer to give up.

[Bardal]

Hola! the generalities with the ladle do not lead to anything concrete.

For a given capacity, the energy increases about the square of the voltage.
This is true for a capacitor (1 / 2 C * U * U), and more or less similar for a battery.

For the capacitor, the capacity is fixed, but for a battery, it is much more empirical and for the liquid nitrogen it is still something else and I prefer to give up.

It is especially that it is completely false, this history of the square of the tension ... It is to confuse a level of energy with a quantity of energy ... By reasoning by the ansurde, it would be enough to put two elements of 1,2 V in series to quadruple the amount of energy, which is obviously absurd ...

As for the comparison of nitrogen and water, it is the same cask, a completely confused vision of the laws of physics.

Eric and enerc, you are made to meet you; why do not you create a specific thread where you can freely exchange, and in a fruitful way, I am sure (the grail of free energy is within your reach).

[ENERC]

It is especially that it is completely false, this history of the square of the tension ... It is to confuse a level of energy with a quantity of energy ... By reasoning by the ansurde, it would be enough to put two elements of 1,2 V in series to quadruple the amount of energy, which is obviously absurd ...

A techno identical, of course that if we double the voltage we double the amount of energy.
But we are talking about different technos.
For example:
Lithium Ion (3,7V) -> 260 Wh / Kg
Lithium Titanate (2,4V) -> 100 Wh / kg
Now 3,7 * 3,7 / 2,4 / 2,4, it gives a ratio of 2,4.

Sometimes it's worse: for example with the "salt water" battery (Aquion battery). With 1,8V, we are barely at 20 Wh / kg while the voltage ratio is 4,2.

Lead: 40 Wh / Kg for a ratio of 3,7 * 3,7 / 2,2 / 2,2 (2,8)

The counter examples are the metal / air batteries as the air does not weigh. But they are not powerful.

I have nothing against batteries containing water. Probably for stationary storage or shipping, but not on a bike, car or phone.

Today we put Lithium ion everywhere and it's absurd.