Evolution and limit of battery energy density

[Andres125sx]

Max theoretical energy storage.

http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/eprint/DT225.pdf (this is your carbon Nanotube battery)
I was looking for a better reference buts its surprising difficult to fine references for physics principals.

From your own link:

Among all calculated systems, the Li/F2 battery processes the highest energy density and the Li/O2 battery ranks as the second highest, theoretically about ten times higher than current Li-ion batteries

So please explain a bit further what are you talking about with the max theoretical energy storage, because if your own link provide info about a battery that can storage 10 times the energy of current LiIon batteries I really can´t get what´s the problem.

There´s a limit, ok, but we only need 2-3 times current capacity (more will be better for lighter batteries and cars, but with 3 times will be enough to surpass ICE range), if it´s theoretically possible up to 10 times, what´s the problem?

5-8%

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleL ... c0ee00777c don't have a non pay version but you can see the trend from the graphs below and it is not depended on chemistry.

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-27 ... _webp=true
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6 ... _webp=true

Maybe with past chemistries, but how do you know that will remain true with future ones?

LiS batteries supposedly will double energy density of LiIon, that would mean a huge step forward. LiO batteries will do the same again, doubling LiS batteries energy density.

Even if reality finally is a half of that, that 5-8% will suffer a dramatic increase

What you´re not considering is the impact of LiS batteries (or whatever chemistry that doubles current energy density). That will be a game changer on the EVs world. All manufacturers WILL use that batteries, and that means the company making those batteries will have a turnover of several billions per year, so these companies are investing like crazy on batteries right now all around the world

Expectations had never been so high for any battery manufacturer, so investment is comparable, and develping rate will be too. Not comparable to 1900-2000 era (5-8% rate) when batteries where used for very limited products, EV will be all around the world, and each one will carry hundreds of those batteries, apart from mobile phones, laptops, etc. 30 years back few products used batteries, today there are billions products using batteries on every country. Not comparable, you can´t take past century as a reference

[flynfrog]

From your own link:

Among all calculated systems, the Li/F2 battery processes the highest energy density and the Li/O2 battery ranks as the second highest, theoretically about ten times higher than current Li-ion batteries

So please explain a bit further what are you talking about with the max theoretical energy storage, because if your own link provide info about a battery that can storage 10 times the energy of current LiIon batteries I really can´t get what´s the problem.

There´s a limit, ok, but we only need 2-3 times current capacity (more will be better for lighter batteries and cars, but with 3 times will be enough to surpass ICE range), if it´s theoretically possible up to 10 times, what´s the problem?

Max theoretical energy storage for a solid comes down to how much charge an atom can hold on it.
You seem to be taking my original post as some sort of insult. Electric drive systems have been in the high 90% efficiency for a long time. They issues has always been the energy density of the battery pack. Even if trends continue the only thing left to develop IE the problem will always be the battery pack.

Maybe with past chemistries, but how do you know that will remain true with future ones?

LiS batteries supposedly will double energy density of LiIon, that would mean a huge step forward. LiO batteries will do the same again, doubling LiS batteries energy density.

Even if reality finally is a half of that, that 5-8% will suffer a dramatic increase

What you´re not considering is the impact of LiS batteries (or whatever chemistry that doubles current energy density). That will be a game changer on the EVs world. All manufacturers WILL use that batteries, and that means the company making those batteries will have a turnover of several billions per year, so these companies are investing like crazy on batteries right now all around the world

Expectations had never been so high for any battery manufacturer, so investment is comparable, and develping rate will be too. Not comparable to 1900-2000 era (5-8% rate) when batteries where used for very limited products, EV will be all around the world, and each one will carry hundreds of those batteries, apart from mobile phones, laptops, etc. 30 years back few products used batteries, today there are billions products using batteries on every country. Not comparable, you can´t take past century as a reference

You again are not grasping basic concepts. The 5-8% rate has held true for over a century. I have no idea if it will maintain its called making an assumption based on historic data, my guess as pointed at in the now first post is that it cant maintain that rate. Its a plot over time its not like Jan 1 battery technology improves by 5-8% automatically. If you take your number of doubling capacity and add them to the earlier chart in a couple of years you will see it still lines up pretty well to the existing curve. As you can also see as since the 1900s you have long stagnant periods of slow development then a new chemistry comes along and we make a huge jump usually followed by long periods of stagnant development. This is how you get the 5-8% a year over time. As you made a huge point earlier of pointing out that compound interest does not apply to batteries because its a financial term. Let me to explain. If you have a checking account that gains interest at an 8% rate annually and you have a battery pack that gains capacity at 8% a year they both double in about 14 years. Its the exact same math one has a dollar sign in front of it or in your case a Euro. Keep in mind dumping money into a problem wont necessarily solve it look at cold fusion. Keep in mind 8% of 10 is a much smaller number than 8% of 100. As batteries are getting better it gets harder to make meaningful leaps in capacity.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, we have CNG only stations down ´ere...

Sorry for the chitty image



As for the thread, well, yes, of course Formula E svcks.

Actually Formula One is almost svcking these days, they sound like vacuum cleaners, imagine Formula E and its silent cars...

It´s like a rock band for deaf people. Makes no freaking sense.

Beethoven´s Nightmare


However, the engineering of the cars is pretty interesting, specially if you´re thinking on building one.

Flyn and Andrés have had an ¨interesting discussion¨ with Flyn trying to explain why battery cars are a terrible idea and Andrés explaining he doesn´t believe they´re a terrible idea.

Well, they´re a terrible idea.

Andrés thinks that just because a trend has been constant for 100 years this doesn't mean anything.

Sure, anything you say. "Researchers" say things could change.

That's the magic of the conditional tense! Anything could. I could pull a rhinoceros out of my butt. I won't but I could.

That´s true, specially if you have two bits of brain and think about the environment and the industry: a car that requires a 10. 000 dollars battery replacement in 5 to 8 years doesn´t seem to be the best investment.

As I see it, the problem with battery driven cars is that they would be, like smartphones, disposable.

Not to mention all the sh1t they would produce


Thus, I would worry more about number of recharging cycles than energy density.

That´s the issue with the friends I have on the field of electric vehicles.

A Tesla has a battery warranty for 8 years. After that, essentially, the car has zero resale value.

http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-life-exp ... -some-sort

However, there is a brilliant solution: highways that power the cars.

Electric trains are not limited by battery density, not that I know.

Look ma, no batteries!


So, I think the future of highways is Wi-Fi recharging more than solar.

http://witricity.com/

Just imagine: ¨researchers¨ say it can be made!

We could use the structural elements (steel) in roads to transmit electricity to cars.

Electrified roads, what could go wrong?

I cannot wait for the future to arrive. Actually, I think it's arriving right now.

[Andres125sx]

Max theoretical energy storage for a solid comes down to how much charge an atom can hold on it.
You seem to be taking my original post as some sort of insult. Electric drive systems have been in the high 90% efficiency for a long time. They issues has always been the energy density of the battery pack. Even if trends continue the only thing left to develop IE the problem will always be the battery pack.

No I don´t take it as an insult, I take it as a vagueness

Main problem with batteries is energy density, and I guess you´re refering to this with that limit, but since I don´t know how that limit affect energy density I was posting theoretical energy densities of different batteries (LiO or LiS) wich would make EVs much better than ICE even in range. A battery with 4 times current energy density will be more than enough for that, so even if the theoretical energy density of LiO batteries (10 times current LiIon) is never reached it doesn´t matter, EVs will become standard anycase

So basically I don´t know what´s the relevance of that data you´re talking about, there´re batteries with potential to multiply current energy density for a factor of 10, so that limit you insist to bring in must be neccesarily over that. So who cares about how much charge can hold an atom if it´s enough to multiply current energy density by 10?

You again are not grasping basic concepts. The 5-8% rate has held true for over a century. I have no idea if it will maintain its called making an assumption based on historic data, my guess as pointed at in the now first post is that it cant maintain that rate. Its a plot over time its not like Jan 1 battery technology improves by 5-8% automatically. If you take your number of doubling capacity and add them to the earlier chart in a couple of years you will see it still lines up pretty well to the existing curve.

Agree, but constant or infinite improvement is not needed, that´s the point I´m trying to explain.

Today EV are worth for maybe 20-30% of users, those who only use cars for short city journeys. Once current capacity is doubled that will be enough for EV to be useful for 90% of users. If it´s tripled then it will be more than enough for everybody. From that point further improvement will be cool to make EV lighter, but it will not be a necessity anymore

As you can also see as since the 1900s you have long stagnant periods of slow development then a new chemistry comes along and we make a huge jump usually followed by long periods of stagnant development. This is how you get the 5-8% a year over time.

This has been true for past century, but not for next years as I explained on my last post. Investment has a direct impact on improvement rate, and investment on battery technology had never been so high as it is today. You say if energy density is doubled, then there will be a period when improvement will be slower so finally the average improvement will continue around 5-8%. Agree. But once it´s doubled EVs will become standard, so further improvement will not be as necessary as it is today

As you made a huge point earlier of pointing out that compound interest does not apply to batteries because its a financial term. Let me to explain. If you have a checking account that gains interest at an 8% rate annually and you have a battery pack that gains capacity at 8% a year they both double in about 14 years. Its the exact same math one has a dollar sign in front of it or in your case a Euro. Keep in mind dumping money into a problem wont necessarily solve it look at cold fusion. Keep in mind 8% of 10 is a much smaller number than 8% of 100. As batteries are getting better it gets harder to make meaningful leaps in capacity.

Again, for a given technology

LiS batteries will double energy density of current LiIon batteries from first versions, that will suppose a huge step forward in very little time, because they´re a reality, only problem now is cycle lifespan but they´re real batteries, not just a theory. Once they´re launched they still will have the potential to at least double energy density again with further development.... or they could be replaced by LiO batteries, or non lithium based batteries and double energy density again

[Andres125sx]

Andrés thinks that just because a trend has been constant for 100 years this doesn't mean anything.

No, what I say is industry investment play a role on improvement rate, don´t you think so?

Or you think in 20´s or 50´s or 70´s there was a comparable investment on battery technology than today?

Up to 80´s batteries were used for.... for what? Some toys, some watches and few more. Only some families used some battery. That´s a 80 years period of the 110 years period you´re taking as a reference

Today batteries are used for EVs, for mobile phones, for laptops, for videocameras, for photo cameras, for mp3, for RC planes, for drones.... There are no family who does not use at least 3-4 batteries, and some use more than 10. Some like myself use more than 30 but I´m not a reference. Anyone with an EV use some hundreds...

Sorry but no, you can´t compare battery investment in 30´s with current today

That´s true, specially if you have two bits of brain and think about the environment and the industry: a car that requires a 10. 000 dollars battery replacement in 5 to 8 years doesn´t seem to be the best investment.

As I see it, the problem with battery driven cars is that they would be, like smartphones, disposable.

Not to mention all the sh1t they would produce
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... ttery7.jpg

I think you should investigate a little bit about new batteries Cyro, price, lifespan and disposability you´re talking about is true for current batteries, but new ones will be way way cheaper (LiS use sulfur, wich is a dispoable material, they will actually use something we´re currently throwing away at many industries, and that obviously is cheap), will be recyclabe (I´ve read they could reach 100% recyclability what would make posible a closed loop) and lifespan is the weak point currently, the only reason they´re not being used yet. But if they´re cheap and recyclable that´s not a big problem either... if they reach useful number of cycles obviously

[turbof1]

No, what I say is industry investment play a role on improvement rate, don´t you think so?

Or you think in 20´s or 50´s or 70´s there was a comparable investment on battery technology than today?

We're edging close to something similar to the law of Moore. And that's where the flaw is: As you might know, the law of Moore describes that every 2 year the amount of transistors in a circuit doubles. Up to this date, that 'law' is still applicable, but scientists are pointing at 2 things:
-An atomic upper limit: if transistors reach the sizes of atoms, then that's it. They can't become any smaller.

-Economic limits: Investment to continue on this law would mean exponentional higher investments. I believe research has gone up tenfold the last 10 years, going from 1 billion to 10 billion. During the first years after Moore came out with his theory, the investment required was a mere 1.5 million. The increase in investment levels aren't bound to continue on forever.

I see and foresee a same evolution of batteries: we'll reach both a hard limit and an economic soft limit.

Today batteries are used for EVs, for mobile phones, for laptops, for videocameras, for photo cameras, for mp3, for RC planes, for drones.... There are no family who does not use at least 3-4 batteries, and some use more than 10. Some like myself use more than 30 but I´m not a reference. Anyone with an EV use some hundreds...

Today's batteries aren't that different from, for instance, 10 or 20 years ago. The main reason why we get more out of batteries, is that the devices using them have become much more energy efficient.

For instance, Iphone users have been complaining for years now to have the devices go longer without recharging. If we look at the evolution of the devices, they got bigger screens and better hardware and the useage remains relative the same. One could be very quick to conclude "it has to come from the battery". Well a little bit, but if we look at the tech, the screens have become more economic, the hardware more economic and the software also increased its efficiency. If we look at the battery, not much has changed.

[Andres125sx]

Ok, but that will happen before or after batteries double or triple current energy density?

That´s the point I think, if it´s after then it doesn´t matter at all

[turbof1]

Ok, but that will happen before or after batteries double or triple current energy density?

That´s the point I think, if it´s after then it doesn´t matter at all

In all honesty, It's more resource-efficient to make the hardware using the batteries 2 or 3 times more efficient. Companies are always going to invest in that before touching the battery.

Ok, but that will happen before or after batteries double or triple current energy density?

It's save to say battery energy density is not going double every 2 years. And investment always becomes first before reaping the results. Given what companies prefer over investing in battery energy density, I think it would actually cost a hell of a lot more then a few billions.

[Andres125sx]

In all honesty, It's more resource-efficient to make the hardware using the batteries 2 or 3 times more efficient. Companies are always going to invest in that before touching the battery.

Sorry but I don´t get what you mean.... how can hardware use batteries 2 or 3 times more efficient? Electric motors are above 80-85% efficiency. I´m missing something?

It's save to say battery energy density is not going double every 2 years.

Obviously, but that´s not needed, doubling energy density once will be enough

[flynfrog]

As you made a huge point earlier of pointing out that compound interest does not apply to batteries because its a financial term. Let me to explain. If you have a checking account that gains interest at an 8% rate annually and you have a battery pack that gains capacity at 8% a year they both double in about 14 years. Its the exact same math one has a dollar sign in front of it or in your case a Euro. Keep in mind dumping money into a problem wont necessarily solve it look at cold fusion. Keep in mind 8% of 10 is a much smaller number than 8% of 100. As batteries are getting better it gets harder to make meaningful leaps in capacity.

Again, for a given technology

NO NO NO if you can't grasp this basic concept the rest of the conversation is moot. Independent of available technology the trend has continued. You keep talking of doubling capacity in the future say this takes 14 or so years then it still fits the curve. If the trend continues we will be hitting the theoretical max energy density soon enough. All of the numbers still match what you are saying.

To further point out at least in the states even if we all did have the best batteries in the world our brilliant leaders have made it all but impossible to build new power plants so we wont be able to charge them anyway.

[sgth0mas]

Hang on a second...how did everyone miss the fact that someone has said battery powered cars are a terrible idea but an entire network of WiFi charged cars is the way to go...

to me...thats as probable as saying "battery cars suck, we should all fly dragons and feed them with diamonds...thats the future".

Im not sure of youve ever seen the amount of waste produced by both petroleum extraction, but its far worse than a few boxes of alkaline batteries. And massive "WiFi" roads need constant maintenence. Also, those chargers are highly dependent on proximity and direction.

Is this all a joke or are people being serious here?

[Andres125sx]

NO NO NO if you can't grasp this basic concept the rest of the conversation is moot. Independent of available technology the trend has continued. You keep talking of doubling capacity in the future say this takes 14 or so years then it still fits the curve. If the trend continues we will be hitting the theoretical max energy density soon enough. All of the numbers still match what you are saying. .

NO NO NO, no need to use capital letters repeatedly...

Doubling capacity in a matter of time, but much less than 14 years. Some say 5 years, some say 10 years, some say even less.... Batteries with double capacity are a reality, not a theory, they only need to improve cycle life, and even that is almost solved...

As you see, the trend will not necessarily keep same improvement rate than last century



UAV using LiS battery 7 months ago

New Lithium-Sulfur Battery With Cycle Performance Comparable To That Of Lithium-Ion Batteries & Double The Energy Density

To further point out at least in the states even if we all did have the best batteries in the world our brilliant leaders have made it all but impossible to build new power plants so we wont be able to charge them anyway.

Sorry but that´s a load of bs. Renewable energies are being developed all around the world, solar plants using photovoltaic panels, solar plants using mirrors to use heat, sea currents, sea waves, obviously wind, hydro plants....

Moreover, they are not needed, there are reports stating no new plants would be needed, as EV will be charged mainly at night, when power demands are really low, so current network will probably be enough. Even so, there are new plants, specially renewable ones, each year

[flynfrog]

Andre simple question do you understand what fitting a curve is?


Please take your graph and compare it to the ones I posted earlier they are pretty much the exact same trend over time.


You keep throwing around this doubling of power in 10 years like it has always happened I'm not saying it wont. I am showing you the trend of increase over the last 100 years it holds pretty close to the line. I am using historical data to extrapolate a trend for future development its not a guarantee either way. You are using what you hope will happen and a few press releases trying to get investors to do the same thing. My guess is based on data, yours is based on what you hope will happen. Let say technology doubles in 10 years instead of 14 but then development stagnates for then next few years it will still fit the overall trend. Its not a hard fast rule I though we all understood what a trend based on historical data was.
You seem to be arguing of the decimal place when we are talking in orders of magnitude.

[Just_a_fan]

However, there is a brilliant solution: highways that power the cars.

Electric trains are not limited by battery density, not that I know.

Look ma, no batteries!
http://static.progressivemediagroup.com ... ns%202.jpg

So, I think the future of highways is Wi-Fi recharging more than solar.

Actually, in many situations, the real solution is to replace the car with better public transport. Take that nice electric train and make it bigger (more people space), faster and more reliable/safer. That way you get lots of people from A to B easily and quickly. Once at B, they can use smaller, lower range local transport for "the final mile" - that's where small, cheap electric "cars" (probably pods) might come in useful.

In the UK we had an extensive railway system once. Then a chap was given the job of reviewing the railways. Like a turkey asked to consider Christmas, he promptly shut most of the system down. Funny that. He also made proposals for bigger cuts which would have left large swathes of the country with no railways at all! Luckily they were abandoned.

Now, in the UK, there are continued calls for improvements to be made to public transport. Ah, bitter irony.

[Andres125sx]

Andre simple question do you understand what fitting a curve is?
http://www.wavemetrics.com/products/igo ... xample.png

Not applicable here, battery energy density is not a fitting curve of the average, best battery wins, and is used everywhere

Please take your graph and compare it to the ones I posted earlier they are pretty much the exact same trend over time.

No, no way, LiS batteries suppose a huge step forward as both graphs I posted show. If you want to assume it will take 14 years to be launched so they fit the historical data that´s another story, but reality is different

You are using what you hope will happen and a few press releases trying to get investors to do the same thing. My guess is based on data, yours is based on what you hope will happen.

My hopes?

So Solar Impulse is something I invented, those graphs comparing all battery technologies potential are crap, and Hanyang University progress comes from my mind (and that was just an example)....

Just in case you didn´t read it...

A new lithium-sulfur battery that demonstrates cycle performance that’s comparable to that offered by currently available commercial lithium-ion batteries and possesses roughly twice the energy density has been developed by an international team of researchers from South Korea and Italy.

Not my hopes, but real development

You seem to be arguing of the decimal place when we are talking in orders of magnitude.

I´m arguing about a battery that will double current energy density of LiIon batteries and will improve much more in the future, a battery wich is used on experimental applications for some time now, and a battery whose only drawback is being solved and posted links to prove it.... All in all a battery wich is pretty close to be launched for everyday use

How can you take doubling energy density as decimals?