This is a cathode made from nanoscale particles of crystalline copper hexacyanoferrate which has a lattice that nicely fits hydrated potassium ions. Very high charge and discharge rates. 40000 cycles and still 80% capacity. Projected to be cheap to mass produce.
The battery chemistry is cheaper than lithium ion, but also heavier for the same energy storage. Sounds like more than a few times heavier, but hard to tell from the article. In any event, aimed at grid storage, energy density isn't as important as for portable electronics.
The fly in the ointment is that they do not have a suitable anode terminal, but as researchers that just gives them something to work on.
New battery press releases are like the "win a free iPad" ads of the tech world.
It seems like every single research institution in the past 10 years has announced some battery breakthrough, via metamaterials, carbon nano-tubes, super-capacitors, etc.
I've yet to see much follow through. It's getting tiresome to read about.
Thank you. Every six months some school or company has some miraculous super-battery that somehow never goes anywhere. I'm not reading any more of these stories until they include the words "Consumer Electronics Show."
Does anyone know why it's taken so long for progress to happen in battery technology? Obviously, I get that it's not that simple, but is there a specific limitation we keep running into a wall here?
I know they mention price at one point in the article, but for something that's bound to have a massive impact on a huge variety of industries, I can't imagine that the money hurdle is insurmountable.
There are a lot of variables that need to be balanced..
high energy density (both mass and volume), decent lifetime (charge cycles, unused degredation), charge/discharge time, suitable voltage range, availablility of materials, non-toxicity, complexity (cost) of manufacture, unused discharge rate, etc, etc.
This also explains why we get so many breakthroughs- a breakthrough in one area alone is usually of no practical use. Where they are they tend to be of niche interest.
Batteries are largely only a major problem in the electronics industry; and the car industry as that goes electric. There are a lot of other ways to store energy which are used in heavy industry where portability isn't required- flywheels, supercapacitors, even HEP stations are used as energy stores by the power grid.
Don't forget that the battery has to more or less operate and survive in a temperature range of 50 below zero to 180 degrees. If not, operating it on a cold day in northern Maine, or leaving it in the sun in southern Florida will break it. All this and above, and you need to be able to BEAT current low priced battery options like car batteries, which perform sufficiently well.
LiFePO4 is not a new (as in research) technology (i came across it when looking into eBikes).. It's just lithium ion battery with a lithium iron phosphate cathode. In practice, this means it trades a little power density for a little longer life.
It could be an interesting option for electronics as power draw continues to fall [eg. would be good in a kindle now], but long life over lighter/longer battery life is a hard sell for both consumers (short termist) and manufacturers (reduced planned obselescence).
They claim to have 92Kwh of LiFePO4, in their Concept_one vehicle.92Kwh will be approaching 2000lb just for the batteries. Just looking at the batteries in their rendering, I don't think it is possible to have that much energy in 10 little modules. I could be wrong, but something about the car that doesn't add up right.
The battery chemistry is cheaper than lithium ion, but also heavier for the same energy storage. Sounds like more than a few times heavier, but hard to tell from the article. In any event, aimed at grid storage, energy density isn't as important as for portable electronics.
The fly in the ointment is that they do not have a suitable anode terminal, but as researchers that just gives them something to work on.