Posted on 01/19/2024 1:05:22 PM PST by Red Badger
Using AI and cloud computing, Microsoft was able to identify promising new battery materials for the Department of Energy (DoE) — in a fraction of the time it would usually take.
The challenge: Batteries are an essential part of the clean energy future. We need them to power electric vehicles and to store energy from solar and wind.
Currently, lithium-ion batteries are our best option for both of these uses, but they aren’t ideal. Because lithium is relatively scarce, it’s also expensive, and the metal is often unethically mined using child labor and environmentally destructive processes.
Identifying better battery materials is a time-consuming process, though.
“It’s always trial and error,” Vijay Murugesan, head of the Material Sciences Group at the DoE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), told Fast Company.
“Something comes up in my dreams or the shower, and then I come in and spend two years testing whether it works or not, and then you go back and do that cycle again for a decade,” he continued. “The success rate is not that great, to be honest.”
What’s new? To speed up that process, PNNL teamed up with Microsoft.
Using a combination of AI models and cloud computing, the tech giant simulated potential chemical combinations for batteries, starting from a list of 32.6 million materials. Within just 80 hours, it had identified 18 promising candidates for new battery materials.
“Something that could have taken years, we did in two weeks,” Jason Zander, an executive VP at Microsoft, told Reuters.
Looking ahead: PNNL scientists have already synthesized one of the candidate battery materials for testing — if it performs well, it could enable production of batteries containing 70% less lithium.
They also expect Microsoft’s technology to lead to the discovery of far more than just new battery materials.
“That’s the part we’re most excited about … We just picked one problem,” said Zander. “There are thousands of problems to go solve, and it’s applicable to all of them.”
VIDEO AT LINK....................
Always trial and error... Except, this time, it's magical!!!
Bitcoins are mined, not created.
I know we can’t store hydrogen, like we do hydrocarbons. There is no medium that we can use to hold hydrogen. If you were to fill up a hydrogen car and go on vacay, when you’d get back you’d have an empty car. Whereas, they probably rocket into space asap after fueling the tanks.
Hydrogen also makes metals brittle over time. You’d eventually end up with fuel tanks that you could tear apart with your bare hands.
It it says in this article that they don’t use hydrogen to lift rockets on the ground, but only to provide continuing thrust when it’s in the air. The reason being is because there is less thrust power in hydrogen than rocket propellant.
To me, it sounds like one of the drawbacks of hydrogen is that our cars might lack in thrust.
https://headedforspace.com/using-liquid-hydrogen-as-rocket-fuel/
Weird how this feature isn't advertised when folks are buying EVs, or this computer I'm typing on.
With all the outrage about "blood diamonds" why isn't Greta Scoldy Locks making a big stink about child slavery in lithium mines? Are the folks in Davos going to do something about it?
“I know we can’t store hydrogen, like we do hydrocarbons. There is no medium that we can use to hold hydrogen. If you were to fill up a hydrogen car and go on vacay, when you’d get back you’d have an empty car. Whereas, they probably rocket into space asap after fueling the tanks.
Hydrogen also makes metals brittle over time. You’d eventually end up with fuel tanks that you could tear apart with your bare hands.”
Tell that to the many auto makers selling hydrogen powered cars ...
How would me telling them change the laws of science and materials?
They were also selling EV’s. Should I also tell them that EV’s are a disaster?
It’s possible they are just developing the technology for tax credits, like they did with EV’s.
“How would me telling them change the laws of science and materials?”
Perhaps they know more than you?
“It’s possible they are just developing the technology for tax credits, “
So they developed tech that you said was impossible.
My point: How QUICK something is made to happen does NOT necessarily mean it is BETTER or MORE effective!
Initially.. all it really means is that it got DONE sooner rather than later.
I never said it was impossible. Anything is possible. If I have a million years, I could probably build a foot bridge to Mars. It doesn’t mean that it’s worth it.
It’s the same with hydrogen. It’s possible to have a hydrogen car. But is it economical? Is it worth having if I have to fill it up every three days and pay $15,000 to replace the fuel cell every 5 years? I’m not saying that literal. I’m just using that as an example of why it can work, but it’s not worth having.
Hydrogen is a potentially better option than lithium batteries. There is no pollution that I’m aware of and you fill up a tank with it, just like you do gasoline. However, it just may not be worth it economically at this time. As I pointed out, we can’t store hydrogen at the moment. You’re going to have leakage. You’re going to have to fill up more often than you do hydrocarbons.
Fuel cells are also more costly to maintain than your car engine.
Then there is the issue of northern climates in winter. Since the byproduct is water, what happens over the course of winter? Are we going to have cars jammed up with ice?
“I never said it was impossible.”
———You said it couldn’t be done-————
I know we can’t store hydrogen, like we do hydrocarbons. There is no medium that we can use to hold hydrogen. If you were to fill up a hydrogen car and go on vacay, when you’d get back you’d have an empty car. Whereas, they probably rocket into space asap after fueling the tanks.
Hydrogen also makes metals brittle over time. You’d eventually end up with fuel tanks that you could tear apart with your bare hands.
“Anyone know any books or papers on the pros and cons with respect to AI?”
You can see the awesome future of AI.
Google: badminton, robot
or
robot and MMA
“GAME OVER!”
https://www.newsweek.com/how-artificial-intelligence-used-discover-new-pharmaceutical-drugs-1853823
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1067904/ai-automation-drug-development/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-65709834
I was speaking economically, not technically. If people cant afford $6/gallon of gas, do you think they can afford $15/gallon of hydrogen and have to fill up more often?
I stand by those two statements. You cant store hydrogen and it makes metals brittle. You can verify that for yourself if you want.
“Anything is possible. If I have a million years, I could probably build a foot bridge to Mars.”
I don’t think you could.
“I was speaking economically, not technically.”
You were talking tech. Quit squirming.
Come back to me in a million years and we’ll see.
I never said it can’t be done technically. I said you can’t store it, because you can’t store it. I also said that it makes metals brittle, because it makes metals brittle. I also said it was more expensive than hydrocarbons.
These are fundamentally economical arguements, because you’ll have to fill up more often. You may have to replace the metal parts of your fuel system more often. It costs more to use than gasoline.
But I never said it cannot be done technically. It just may not be possible to do it economically. If you read my posts on this, I said that hydrogen is a better alternative than lithium because it acts similarly to hydrocarbons and there is no pollution.
It’s just expensive to do, that’s all.
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.