I was browsing through some recent Nature publications for work-related purposes when I came across 2 publications that look very promising for battery tech.
The publications can be a bit dry if you're not familiar with electrochemistry but they're definitely worth a read. Essentially, these two designs would definitely provide greater energy density which is sorely needed for everything from electric vehicles and solar cells to cell phones and laptops. The aluminum graphite cathode looks the most appealing to me because it has the potential to make solar cells actually somewhat practical and a lot less environmentally hazardous due to the replacement of cadmium (II) oxide they put in the more efficient models. That stuff is extremely toxic and hard to clean up (I made a miniature panel in undergrad and we had to go through a shit-ton of of safety precautions when handling the stuff and for the disposal later on). Plus the aluminum model has insane efficiency. Both would make the price drop since Sulfur and Aluminum are more abundant and easier to use than things like hexafluorophosphate and other counterparts to lithium in standard lithium ion batteries. I'm utterly fascinated by things like this and can't wait to see market applications take hold. I just wonder how long it will take to get something like this to manufacturing. Thought it was worth sharing.
i say gib us nuclear batteries. US Airforce approved it for consumer market... US Army divisions use nuke batteries for their laptop etc... we in US are sitting on stockpiles of depleted uranium, plutonium etc, radioactive material, nuke fuel... those can also be used for batteries... one battery would last years, and its radiation could be isolated...
in us we are sitting on nuke waste worth around 100years of batteries for everyone including growth of population in country.
That may be so but you're going to have a hard time selling a nuclear battery to the population when they're scared shitless of anything that has the word "nuclear" in it. Logan and Wendell mentioned liquid thorium salt reactors a while back and people here are still scared of using that even though it's significantly safer than the nuclear processes we already use. If you're going to pitch a new battery design to the public the public has to want to buy it. I think nuclear needs to be integrated into replacing fossil fuel plants that provide juice for the grid. Way better alternative than wind and solar at this point.
thorium isn't worth it, i've researched the material and its not efficient enough to make profit. (no conspiracy really)
Look people would love it. Its NU Clear! Its the most environment friendly technology we have, and amount in battery for lets say laptop would be small, and your laptop would run for few years without the need to charge up....
imagine electric cars, but you would never need to charge them for years... its dream come true...
I agree with you that it's a good idea but you're vastly overestimating the intelligence of most people. They don't think when they hear the word nuclear they just react. They think of Cherynobyl and three mile island and their gut feeling is just "DANGER!". I've tried to talk to people about this and most outside of the scientist community react that way no matter what you tell them.
right, why would you use nuke waste in space? wouldn't be better to actually mount proper reactor up there? Or use other ways of gain power. You see its fairly easy to make electricity in space with no gravitation, air to halt the movement... just push the wheel once and it'll turn till the end of the times ;)
You can't really automate a fission reactor. I have been an operator in a Nuclear plant and Now do industrial automation. Trust me on this that it would be a bad idea.
yeah but we're using basics of radioactive waste, we heat up water inside secured container and generate power from it.
Its not like your nuke reactor or something, we basically use nuke reactor fuel. It would work. (and it did, because military is using it already since 2008)
Nuclear batteries don't use water they use thermo-electric generators. And it doesn't use normal nuclear fuel it uses strontium, tritium, or promethium.
Or a non fissile isotope of plutonium but none of it happens via fission it is by various particle decays.
well yes, us airforce was using tritium (in liquid?); my argument is that they've done it & approved for consumer market. They also power up most electrical devices like their laptops and equipment in f22 and f35's.
