Posted on 04/08/2016 5:35:43 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I only remember getting into it about trains with the departed (zotted) Willie Green....
That’s why capacitors can be so much fun in a dramatic way...
If electric cars turn out to be many, it is likely that “they” will want your car to be hooked to the grid whenever you are not driving it. This will provide a lot of energy storage which will be available for downloading to the grid for peak requirements. If you drive it two hours a day, your battery will be available to the grid for the other 22 hours. If you are lucky, it will have a charge when you want to go to work in the morning.
their financial looked pretty ugly. If they’re any good they’ll be bought out.
I love magic battery stories. I bet I’ve seen at least 50 of ‘em in the last 40 years. And not a single one has ever made it to the market. Yes, their were always lots of “investors”, but there were always “manufacturing problems” that just somehow could never quite be worked out.
Nice!
Ford says the rare earth metal Dysprosium, the rarest and most expensive used in Ford vehicles, has been reduced by about 50% in the (newer Li) batteries.
BOOKbump
“When something seems to good to be true...”
It often turns out to be true, when it’s new technology, Look at the computers and phones of today versus those of 20 years ago. Or the cars of today for that matter.
Scientists and engineers are priceless resources!
Yes, yes, good ol’ Kevmo!
And his magical LENR!
Used to have to wonder while reading his threads whether insanity was catching.
But once he was gone (you are right, he rode the lightning) a guy could almost miss him, if only for diversionary purposes.
I remember when lithium ion was one of those magic batteries. I agree the number that pan out vs. announced is not very good.
Yep, there was some pure entertainment gold in that...
Is this a public company with stock for sale?
Probably private though I haven't checked.
***********************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Brian Bishop says:
On the math. While it is nice to see equations on the order of Cathodecost=.7*Batterycost and all form of careful consideration, the presentation is already normed to kWH so there is no $102 savings as you imagine. If you need X kWH to run a Tesla the relative cost could be calculated as 54/200=.27 which could be expressed as 27%.
So all this parsing of proportions of battery cost is not related to the language of the article and charts which state that the “energy cost”, NOT the “cathode cost”, is 27% of existing technology. Of course the whole thing could be an optimistic fib (or stock pumping). And it is confusing that they join energy density and the cost per energy unit in a single phrase. But assuming for the sake of mathematical argument that this isn’t grandstanding, what double the energy density really means is that the battery that would cost 27% of current state of the art technology and would weigh half as much — perhaps giving an unspecified performance enhancement in terms of miles/kWH that could be calculated in energy savings to further diminish the 27% figure, or could allow the same car to carry twice the kWH and thus extend range. (albeit the cost savings per car would not be as much – i don’t know that there is a unit of measure that would could describe the value of additional range – perhaps the opportunity cost of stopping to charge).
one caveat is that the measurement of energy density, as far as i can tell, makes no reference to the traditional density measurment of specific gravity, so i’m unclear what the actual physical size of the battery would permit the inclusion of the greater kWH capacity in a largely similiar body configuration.
So I think this is interesting, maybe exciting, but it is a question of bringing the technology to market and showing that it works and it lasts. Fracking of course has passed that test so it can be called a game changer in the real world. It gave us the 2nd Obama presidency, I reckon, so I could perhaps wish it hadn’t been quite so effective . . .
I would celebrate a battery techology that was the equivalent of fracking but this has a long way to go. Fracking was adopted in the face of skepticism without subsidy I don’t mind X-prizes for milestones but god forbid we subsidize widespread adoption, which would indicate just the opposite.No game changer, just a shell game.
The innovation is the low-cost, light-weight but powerful battery developed by Nobel prize-winner Alan Heeger, PhD of the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB).
...
Heeger is 80 years old. For some reason older scientists seem to get involved in scams. Just sayin’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.