Ligna Energy makes wooden battery, a fight against Lithium and Lead

[StDragon]

It's called a "log". The sun charges up these trees and they grow taller and wider. Then you chop them down and cut into smaller pieces. Now you burn them. It's very carbon neutral.

[Nup]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

All I'm looking for here is capacity in relation to volume. This is all well and good but only if it can actually come close to the performance of lithium batteries.

I'd put my guesses on no - lithium will always be much smaller than organic molecules, cant get around size.

[Mark Kaine]

"ligma balls"

 

lol I looked this up...

 

now google says this:

 

 

Thanks, guys!  -_-

 

 

 

 

[Shimejii]

Cant wait for this tech to be dead within 2 years because nobody wanted it because its terrible performance and weight issue.

 

Its one thing to innovate, its another for this kind of pointless "tech" that just doesnt seem worth it at any point other then "because they could" It performs worse, its weighs way more, and overall just doesnt seem all that worth it

[Joduko]

Ligma energy

[Mihle]

12 hours ago, Sauron said:

All I'm looking for here is capacity in relation to volume. This is all well and good but only if it can actually come close to the performance of lithium batteries.

For batteries on land for electrical network, charging stations to even out load or other things on land, capacity compared to volume dont matter that much, it matters, but it matters less than capacity compared to price(both first investment cost and having to replace it after not many years). 

 

It matters in phones and cars and movable things tho. 

 

Long term we will probably see more of different battery technologies being used on stationary land things and movable things. When or what type I have no idea but eventually. 

 

A battery and organic don't seem to me that will be words that fit together to be something that wear out less than current batteries tho....

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, Sauron said:

All I'm looking for here is capacity in relation to volume. This is all well and good but only if it can actually come close to the performance of lithium batteries.

Yea, it will depend.  If it's intended to take on BEV, then I'd say top 3 things needed would be cycle life, energy density, and charge rate.

 

If this is more intended as battery walls, then cycle life takes priority and potentially power density (depending, as long as it's reasonable).  Overall, if this is meant for grid batteries then yea power density matters a lot less.  Only important things there would be cycle life, discharge/charge rates.

 

Plus the ever important $/kwh (but that number doesn't mean much without knowing things like cycle life and capacity per cell)

 

Either way, given they haven't been touting how great their numbers are (but just pushing a "green" approach), my guess is that this will be another non-starter that ends up creating a tech that won't be used because it's not commercially viable.

[Beerzerker]

I'm just wondering about the terms of warranty with these.
Would Orkin be involved?

[Master Disaster]

Batteries that are MUCH more powerful than current tech is pretty much a pipe dream for us ATM.

 

Material science is INCREDIBLY slow and to store more energy dense matter requires more robust materials otherwise you end up with Galaxy Note 7s except ones that blow arms and legs off instead of burning you. Even once we get materials capable of storing more energy dense fuel, there comes a point where you don't want to be carrying it in your pocket anyway which negates the point of it being a battery.

 

Physics works in a pretty well defined way, things improve slowly over time, huge leaps forward are not impossible but require multiple different things to all come together at the same time and that is VERY rare.

[RejZoR]

14 hours ago, tikker said:

That's press outlets for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Batteries and fusion. The two technologies that always have their breakthoughs around the corner. Cool to see that different possibilities are still being explored for them though.

It's not. Fusion I kinda understand. It's a problem from physical standpoint where we need to create insane pressure, insane magnetic forces and force atoms to fuse under those conditions. Essentially we're trying to create mini star on Earth. We've been trying to achieve that for years and it's hard to just make that process to happen, let alone harvest net positive power from it.

 

Batteries on the other hand, we have them already. They work. They suck at certain things and they are great at certain things. We're just making them better with time. We never had fusion reactors and we can't make them better when we don't even have them yet in shape to provide us any kind of power. So, I think it's not quite the same. We'll complain about not having fusion reactors in our cars and phones after we have functioning fusion power plants powering our homes and factories for few years...

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, tikker said:

That's press outlets for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Batteries and fusion. The two technologies that always have their breakthoughs around the corner. Cool to see that different possibilities are still being explored for them though.

Absolutely, and the problem is that all the eco-mentals think that the next big battery or fusion breakthrough is tomorrow and so argue not to invest in nuclear tech.  Arguing against the only true green power source we have at our disposal because of what?  Media and ideologies.  WE are doomed!!!

 

 

[Kilrah]

45 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Batteries on the other hand, we have them already. They work. They suck at certain things and they are great at certain things. We're just making them better with time.

That's the point, there have been so many claims to "complete breakthroughs that make you forget anything you know about batteries" but that never turned into anything. 

[Master Disaster]

21 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

That's the point, there have been so many claims to "complete breakthroughs that make you forget anything you know about batteries" but that never turned into anything. 

And it never will, energy density is 100% defined, the laws of physics dictate certain, well laws , that we cannot break.

 

As I already said, once you get much more powerful than a phone battery you don't want it in your pocket all the time anyway cause if one were to fail limbs would in pieces.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Absolutely, and the problem is that all the eco-mentals think that the next big battery or fusion breakthrough is tomorrow and so argue not to invest in nuclear tech.  Arguing against the only true green power source we have at our disposal because of what?  Media and ideologies.  WE are doomed!!!

Its not often you and I agree absolutely on something but in this case you couldn't be more right if you existed in a right sided only universe. When the general population can tell the experts they're wrong and affect negative change something has gone very wrong.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

It's not. Fusion I kinda understand. It's a problem from physical standpoint where we need to create insane pressure, insane magnetic forces and force atoms to fuse under those conditions. Essentially we're trying to create mini star on Earth. We've been trying to achieve that for years and it's hard to just make that process to happen, let alone harvest net positive power from it.

 

Batteries on the other hand, we have them already. They work. They suck at certain things and they are great at certain things. We're just making them better with time. We never had fusion reactors and we can't make them better when we don't even have them yet in shape to provide us any kind of power. So, I think it's not quite the same. We'll complain about not having fusion reactors in our cars and phones after we have functioning fusion power plants powering our homes and factories for few years...

Fusion has the running joke, even within the physics community, that we're always X years away from achieving it (in a usable manner). We've been saying that basically from its conception.You're right that batteries have improved already over time. They did make another big step this year, but you're right that batteries are somewhat different. Over time they already have improved. Batteries have also have this "next best thing" thing going on the last years though with solid state batteries, other materials or now this wood version.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its not often you and I agree absolutely on something but in this case you couldn't be more right if you existed in a right sided only universe. When the general population can tell the experts they're wrong and affect negative change something has gone very wrong.

Every time I hear a lobbyist claim they have "done their research" or someone claims they understand how fusion/fission works,  I imagine they have watched this and understood it too:

 

 

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, Mihle said:

For batteries on land for electrical network, charging stations to even out load or other things on land, capacity compared to volume dont matter that much, it matters, but it matters less than capacity compared to price(both first investment cost and having to replace it after not many years). 

 

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If this is more intended as battery walls, then cycle life takes priority and potentially power density (depending, as long as it's reasonable).  Overall, if this is meant for grid batteries then yea power density matters a lot less.  Only important things there would be cycle life, discharge/charge rates.

Sure, but if they can't address much more common uses for batteries then the environmental impact is going to be marginal at best, even if the carbon cost for these were 0 (which I seriously doubt, especially when they basically have to chop down trees to make them).

[bcredeur97]

The quest for better batteries continues...

[Jito463]

On 12/11/2021 at 4:56 PM, Mark Kaine said:

lol I looked this up...

 

now google says this:

 

 

Thanks, guys!  -_-

This is why I never just "search" for something I don't understand.  If I really want to know, I use another browser in private mode.

16 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

As I already said, once you get much more powerful than a phone battery you don't want it in your pocket all the time anyway cause if one were to fail limbs would in pieces.

You mean I can't have a phone with a built in nuclear reactor?  What is this world coming to?!

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

Every time I hear a lobbyist claim they have "done their research" or someone claims they understand how fusion/fission works,  I imagine they have watched this and understood it too:

I hadn't seen that before.  Thanks for posting that.

[wanderingfool2]

14 hours ago, Sauron said:

 

Sure, but if they can't address much more common uses for batteries then the environmental impact is going to be marginal at best, even if the carbon cost for these were 0 (which I seriously doubt, especially when they basically have to chop down trees to make them).

Well yea, I doubt that this is actually going to be a thing...there are already so many red-flags with this (no numbers given, and using vague language about the process).

 

With that said, storage for the grid is going to be a huge importance in the future.  A lot of renewable energies tend require energy storage to not be wasteful and actually supply power (solar with nights, wind when there isn't wind)...lithium batteries are far from ideal solutions for these kind of applications.  This is where the technology can really start potentially getting a foothold if it holds the correct metrics (of cost per kwh)

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

This is why I never just "search" for something I don't understand.  If I really want to know, I use another browser in private mode

honestly as you can probably see im not logged in and its kinda interesting with what google comes up with based on your searches... it was just kinda revealing to me *that* made me American cause i honestly think google has not told me that before  (and if it has to be years...)

 

last location was Canary islands,  a much preferable place if you ask me ~

 

usually it says Italy,  Scotland (for whatever reason??) UK, etc but yeah, usually italy or even toscana (i think it said that, not toskana or Tuscany...)  even though I don't really recall having searched for it specifically recently...

 

ps: we back!

 

 

 

 

 

sorry for offtopic!  

 

17 hours ago, tikker said:

Fusion has the running joke [...]

yeah, this is a weird one... since 1950... 

 

As for batteries... idk why everything has to be a happening nowadays,  surely research on the matter makes sense, despite what certain twitter billionaires want you to think current  battery tech is neither healthy nor sustainable... its basically all highly toxic, not to mention the questionable sourcing of materials...

[Kilrah]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

idk why everything has to be a happening nowadays

Because it's the closest and easiest thing to "free money" you can get today.

Present an idea that's going to "revolutionize" the field even if you know there's no way in hell it can actually work in a way that gets you round the news, get loads of funding from people who either want to clean their conscience by participating to the next clean/green thing or are ignorant to the tech and only see the potential returns if it works given that energy storage is about the biggest worldwide thing there is and anyone who actually made a breakthrough would get the entire world's business instantly. Make it look like you're "working" on it for a few years, end up with "we tried so hard but it just didn't work" and there you go, you got grossly paid for a few years doing nothing at all. 

[CarlBar]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, this is a weird one... since 1950... 

 

What it boils down to is how things scale. They expected to scale up thing X times in energy output it would take N times the size and energy input, but it's actually taken N squared size and input, figuring out how to reduce that has been the challenge.

 

The two approaches seem to be really powerful superconducting magnets to keep physical size down or just building super sized reactor prototypes. The latter of which is super expensive, and the former has needed a lot of slow tech advances.

 

It's a similar deal in space launch capability. Getting cheap launch capability requires large mass to orbit values on a per year basis because the best ways to get low launch costs only work when there's a lot of stuff going up. The alternative is much fancier manufacturing tech to make it as cheap as possibble, and thats taken slow tech advances.

 

In fact it's true of a lot of things TBH.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Kilrah said:

Because it's the closest and easiest thing to "free money" you can get today.

yeah, i guess you're right, it was a genuine question, but then the next question is why are so many eating it up? to me this sort of thing immediately raises a bunch of red flags and i generally just ignore it (which is probably why im often perplexed when i notice others *dont* ignore it and act like its a serious thing "for real" )  

 

 

57 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

It's a similar deal in space launch capability.

"project orion" disagrees!

 

(seriously *that* is something they should have done, im with the Dyson guy here, even though i usually dont agree with him on much... )

[Pixel5]

Zero actual numbers about these batteries on the website.

Just fancy graphics and visions without any hard data.

 

Looks like a lot of vaporware with nothing behind it.