"Ah yes, enslaved Global Warming" - Litium-Carbon Dioxide Batteries demonstrated.

[williamcll]

A bit of late news but scientists from the university of Illinois have found a way to create batteries that are carbon neutral and is even more efficient that lithium batteries. The battery is still in testing and no talks of commercialization has been mentioned yet.

Quote

Researchers have developed the first fully-rechargeable carbon-neutral battery that also uses carbon dioxide in its chemistry, paving the way for more energy-dense power-storage systems that are more eco-friendly. A team at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) demonstrated a lithium-carbon dioxide battery prototype that can run up to 500 consecutive cycles of charge/recharge processes, they reported.

 

The team, led by Amin Salehi-Khojin, associate professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at UIC’s College of Engineering, worked with researchers at the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, who performed theoretical qualifications to aid in their design. Researchers long have known that lithium-carbon dioxide batteries are a good option for energy-storage systems because they have an energy density more than seven times higher than the lithium-ion batteries we commonly use today. However, until now, it’s been difficult to get carbon to work effectively with a catalyst to maintain battery stability, Salehi-Khojin said. “Lithium-carbon dioxide batteries have been attractive for a long time, but in practice, we have been unable to get one that is truly efficient until now,” he said in a press statement.

 

Solving the Catalyst Issue

In lithium-carbon dioxide battery chemistries, the discharge produces lithium carbonate and carbon. While the lithium carbonate recycles during the charge phase, the carbon instead accumulates on the catalyst, which ultimately leads to the battery’s failure, researchers said.This accumulation of carbon creates two problems for the battery, said Alireza Ahmadiparidari, a UIC College of Engineering graduate student who also worked on the research. It blocks the catalyst’s active sites and prevents carbon dioxide diffusion, as well as triggers electrolyte decomposition in a charged state, he said in a press statement.To solve these challenges, researchers used new materials to create a battery chemistry that can recycle both lithium carbonate and carbon, they said.

 

Specifically, researchers used molybdenum disulfide as a cathode catalyst combined with a hybrid electrolyte to help incorporate carbon in the cycling process. This combination of materials produced a single multi-component composite of products rather than separate ones. This, in tur,n creates a more efficient environment for material recycling, researchers said.The result of this effort is the “first carbon-neutral lithium carbon dioxide battery with much more efficiency and long-lasting cycle life,” Salehi-Khojin said in a press statement. This opens the door to using this type of battery in advanced energy storage systems, he said.

Thoughts: There has been a lot of competitors against Li-ion batteries in recent years but nothing has really stand out, hopefully this would reach full production soon since leaving the Paris accord on climate change could leave devastating impacts on world weather and rising sea levels. At the same time I also suspect batteries like this will cost a fortune.

 

Source:

https://www.designnews.com/materials-assembly/first-rechargeable-carbon-neutral-carbon-dioxide-battery-invented/187675307261635

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.201902518

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/first-rechargeable-carbon-dioxide-battery/

[Rune]

The only way we will ever save ourselves is by making it cheaper.

[dizmo]

If they're just passing proof of concept, we're still many, many years away from any kind of retail product.

I'd say 10+.

[Fnige]

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

If they're just passing proof of concept, we're still many, many years away from any kind of retail product.

I'd say 10+.

dont we need to get to 0% by 2030?

[thorhammerz]

4 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

dont we need to get to 0% by 2030?

Some groups think even 2025 is possible .

[Fnige]

1 minute ago, thorhammerz said:

Some groups think even 2025 is possible .

If we try hard enough

[dizmo]

17 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

dont we need to get to 0% by 2030?

Not gonna happen with renewables. Nuclear is the way forward.

[williamcll]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Not gonna happen with renewables. Nuclear is the way forward.

Especially fusion power, Fission is too risky.

[dizmo]

Just now, williamcll said:

Especially fusion power, Fission is too risky.

I always laugh at people that think solar is a solution. It might be for some things, but the sheer land area needed to produce the same power as a nuclear power plant is....absolutely insane. Not to mention solar is incredibly not green.

[BiG StroOnZ]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Not gonna happen with renewables. Nuclear is the way forward.

 

1 minute ago, williamcll said:

Especially fusion power, Fission is too risky.

 

[williamcll]

Just now, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

 

I would like to argue about this: since the majority of fusion fuels are in the bottom of the ocean, wouldn't oil companies have the most ease in extracting them?

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, williamcll said:

I would like to argue about this: since the majority of fusion fuels are in the bottom of the ocean, wouldn't oil companies have the most ease in extracting them?

The comic is more of a reflection of the Media battles. In actual reality "energy companies" have this weird tendency of having stakes in every energy project they can find. It's almost like they're in the Energy Business.

 

As for Nuclear Power, the real problem was that it worked so well. A lot of groups had a big interest in it not going forward. 40 years of R&D into nuclear would produce significantly safer designs (they're available right now, actually), along with you can use other products than Uranium. Molten Salt reactors are used in places and Thorium, while more expensive, really has always seemed like a much better choice for domestic nuclear energy. Then there is, for the USA, never allowing reprocessing of spent rods.

 

Basically, a lot of forces converged to keep nuclear power from getting safer and eliminating waste products. But, they also starved out Fusion of R&D money for decades, as well. Someone it meant a lot more Coal got used.

[BiG StroOnZ]

35 minutes ago, williamcll said:

I would like to argue about this: since the majority of fusion fuels are in the bottom of the ocean, wouldn't oil companies have the most ease in extracting them?

 

Great articles, if you're interested in knowing/learning about the answer to that question:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11Prager.html

https://laist.com/2011/07/12/seawater_nuclear_fusion_you_a_guide.php

https://www.quora.com/Is-mining-deuterium-for-fusion-reactors-from-the-deep-ocean-feasible-in-the-long-run

[RejZoR]

Oh, more battery news. Glances at a mobile device that's going to die at the end of the day... Yeah. We've been promised batteries that last for days under heavy use, have millions of charge cycles and recharge to 100% in minutes and even seconds. And yet years after we still have wireless devices that last stupid short time...

[Salv8 (sam)]

it's like smoking but it's inside the battery!

the magic smoke is easier to get out!

10/10 would buy again!

 

 

 

 

[vorticalbox]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

paving the way for more energy-dense power-storage systems that are more eco-friendly

how is it more Eco friendly? you take carbon out of the air sure but its not gone and its not free to take co2 from the air and with being more dense and probably holding more power means more use of fossil fuels used to charge them.

 

[Trik'Stari]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

Especially fusion power, Fission is too risky.

It's risky, but there are modern designs we could use that would make it far less problematic. Liquid fueled reactors instead of solid rods, thorium, etc.

 

IIRC China is actually building the first full scale thorium reactor. They're expensive but for some reason (money and screaming, ignorant hippies) won't let any new reactors get built in the west.

[rcmaehl]

So if I set a LiCO2 battery on fire, I'll get double the smoke of a LiPo battery fire?

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, williamcll said:

lithium-carbon dioxide batteries are a good option for energy-storage systems because they have an energy density more than seven times higher than the lithium-ion batteries we commonly use today

So this is like the 10th or so Lithium derivative battery technology I've heard of over the last 20 or more years and maybe 2 or 3 ever came to market, all boast claims like this. I'd rather hear more specific information around it's actual viability. Lithium-titanate was the next big thing 15 years ago and it's only just getting used now and it along with Lithium-iron Phosphate and way expensive.

[GoldenLag]

1 hour ago, vorticalbox said:

how is it more Eco friendly? you take carbon out of the air sure but its not gone and its not free to take co2 from the air and with being more dense and probably holding more power means more use of fossil fuels used to charge them.

 

Thats not the bit that makes it eco-friendly. Its the fact you can recycle it easier apperantly. 

 

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

IIRC China is actually building the first full scale thorium reactor. They're expensive but for some reason (money and screaming, ignorant hippies) won't let any new reactors get built in the west.

Fairly certain its India who is working towards commercial use the fastest. Sometime 2040 if things go to plan (they never do, but one can hope),

 

Dont know if others have a project going on atm. China may have a test plant ynder construction im unaware of. 

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Thats not the bit that makes it eco-friendly. Its the fact you can recycle it easier apperantly. 

 

Fairly certain its India who is working towards commercial use the fastest. Sometime 2040 if things go to plan (they never do, but one can hope),

 

Dont know if others have a project going on atm. China may have a test plant ynder construction im unaware of. 

Only sources I can find (in a brief search) are from China itself, so not entirely reliable. They're working on it apparently? If true, at least they're trying. Whilst we are just handcuffing ourselves.

[MrFixitBlankFace]

I’ll just leave this here

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

how is it more Eco friendly? you take carbon out of the air sure but its not gone and its not free to take co2 from the air and with being more dense and probably holding more power means more use of fossil fuels used to charge them.

That's assuming where you live uses a lot of Fossil Fuels for energy production.

 

Here, for example, we use Nuclear and Hydro-Electric for the majority of power, with Natural Gas to handle peak changes and load balancing. And of course, lots of Solar and Wind - but even lots still only makes up a small percentage of total output.

 

Most of my electricity comes from Bruce Nuclear or hydro-electric (Niagara Falls, or there's a smaller local hydro-electric dam that recently came online).

 

Bruce Nuclear is the third largest Nuclear Power Station in the world, with an output around 6.3 GWe (Gigawatt electrical). It's a shame that Canada hasn't invested in new Nuclear Stations recently though - I would support a new Nuclear Station or an expansion of Bruce Nuclear.

[Jito463]

10 hours ago, williamcll said:

since leaving the Paris accord on climate change could leave devastating impacts on world weather

*sigh*

 

I really hope you're being facetious.

[BuckGup]

I have been hearing about new batteries that will change the world since NiCad was popular