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

[wanderingfool2]

14 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Yeah but having a high cycle count doesn't do anything to improve output, only durability (which arguably is the more important metric anyway since disposing batteries is pretty toxic to the environment).

The whole point behind the post was to say that the claim that it's just snake oil for someone who is claiming to make world changing battery isn't necessarily false...as things like cycle capacity can make a whole lot of a difference even at a reduced volume energy density; and it won't necessarily be made from lithium.  Like if you could make a battery that was lets say 10000x cycle count but 5x larger than an equivalent lithium battery it would still be a game changing battery.

 

14 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Again, its the pesky laws of physics, since energy cannot be created or lost, you can only ever get out what you put in.

It's not the limits of the laws physics; none of what is talking about getting more energy than was put into the system.  I'm talking about efficiencies...aluminum smelting is notoriously in-efficient (burns a lot of energy).  If there was ever a massive discovery that allows for the smelting to be less wasteful, then aluminum batteries could very well become a thing.

 

Same thing with graphene, what I said isn't any contradiction to the laws of physics.  We lack the ability to create graphene at scale and at high enough purity...it may or may not happen (who knows, it took years before Lithium ion became a thing).  If they were able to be mass produced, it could change things up (although likely used in a lithium battery as it could multiply that density by over 2x)

[Kilrah]

17 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

aluminum smelting is notoriously in-efficient (burns a lot of energy).  If there was ever a massive discovery that allows for the smelting to be less wasteful

Unlikely it will happen, AFAIK that is simply tied to the chemistry.

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The whole point behind the post was to say that the claim that it's just snake oil for someone who is claiming to make world changing battery isn't necessarily false...as things like cycle capacity can make a whole lot of a difference even at a reduced volume energy density; and it won't necessarily be made from lithium.  Like if you could make a battery that was lets say 10000x cycle count but 5x larger than an equivalent lithium battery it would still be a game changing battery.

Fair.

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

It's not the limits of the laws physics; none of what is talking about getting more energy than was put into the system.  I'm talking about efficiencies...aluminum smelting is notoriously in-efficient (burns a lot of energy).  If there was ever a massive discovery that allows for the smelting to be less wasteful, then aluminum batteries could very well become a thing.

 

Same thing with graphene, what I said isn't any contradiction to the laws of physics.  We lack the ability to create graphene at scale and at high enough purity...it may or may not happen (who knows, it took years before Lithium ion became a thing).  If they were able to be mass produced, it could change things up (although likely used in a lithium battery as it could multiply that density by over 2x)

I kind of meant the reverse, the more energy dense the starter material is, the more energy we have to put into processing it before we can get anything out of it. This is why carbon makes such a great fuel, nature already did most of the processing for us, we just have to burn it and why hydrogen is the ideal fuel, its very energy dense, clean, literally everywhere and burns without processing. Unfortunately its also really dangerous to store in large quantities and impossible to store long term (at least currently).

 

We've reached the point know where efficiency improvements are all we can hope for, at least for portable batteries.

[Spindel]

On 12/19/2021 at 4:21 AM, justpoet said:

I didn't read all the comments, just a quick skim of the first page or so of them...but I read the article.

 

This is pretty cool, but somewhat limited in use.  To answer a few of the things people in comments have said:

1) Their goal is energy density similar to lead acid (not lithium)...so don't expect this in any portable/handheld device.

2) They don't state energy output/charging capabilities, self discharge rates, cycle expectancies, nor weight.  It could likely be argued that this would weigh less than either Pb or Li batteries though.  If the other items aren't bad, it has potential for future vehicles since city items like busses are way more impacted by weight than by physical size for their efficiency.  That'd be super scaled up in long term future land though.

3) They are already producing for some IoT devices (low draw sensors), and have agreements with a solar storage company.  So at this point, they can make them, but they're looking to ramp up to make them in more traditional scale.

 

 

How green it really ends up being will likely end up being based on how much processing needs to be done to get a good enough quality material for the packs, and how many charge cycles.  You don't gain green points by needing to be replaced more often and thus needing more transportation emissions.

 

I'd personally be happy to see a simple replacement for Alkaline/nimh...since that bar is pretty low for success at this point, and they're still in all kinds of things.

I gave up on this comment section because of lot of idiotic answers by people not reading the answer. Like the application of these batteries, the energy density and overall purpose. 
 

As for your your ”how green” thought you need to have the perspective of Sweden (where they are developed). Forest and paper industry is huge here, huge as in bigger than all other industries combined. Lignin is abundant as a byproduct as a result. There are a lot of research here on what can be done with it other than just burning it for heat/electricity. 

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

...why hydrogen is the ideal fuel, its very energy dense, clean, literally everywhere and burns without processing...

 

In addition to the negatives you mentioned it is neither clean nor very energy dense. Steam, (the result of burning it with O2), is actually a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, we just don't chuck enough of it up currently to be a big contributer to global warming. And at best it has about 13 times less energy per volume than petrol. But thats at cryogenic liquid temps. A more realistic though still extreme storage of room temperature gas at 2800PSI it's around 1/100th the density.

 

Now true you cna use it i n a fuel cell to power an electric drive train which will buy you a LOT of efficiency back, but i doubt it's going to be as amazing as you'd think. In fact t's bad enough in high pressure gas form, (around 400Wh/L), that the very best lithium batteries outperform it.

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, Spindel said:

I gave up on this comment section because of lot of idiotic answers by people not reading the answer. Like the application of these batteries, the energy density and overall purpose. 
 

As for your your ”how green” thought you need to have the perspective of Sweden (where they are developed). Forest and paper industry is huge here, huge as in bigger than all other industries combined. Lignin is abundant as a byproduct as a result. There are a lot of research here on what can be done with it other than just burning it for heat/electricity. 

 

Some of us are paying attention, but unless we hear more details or of someone intending to use it there's not a lot more to say.

[tikker]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

In addition to the negatives you mentioned it is neither clean nor very energy dense. Steam, (the result of burning it with O2), is actually a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, we just don't chuck enough of it up currently to be a big contributer to global warming.

That is because it's temperature that determines the amount of water vapour in the air and not the amount of water vapour in the air that determines temperature. Other greenhouse gases like CO2 don't condense, so pumping more CO2 into the air can increase the temperature whereas pumping more water vapour in the air doesn't really do so directly, because it will hit that limit at which point the water will condense and form clouds or rain back down to the surface. It can still create clouds and what not, of course, affecting it that way. It's an efficient greenhouse gas, but it's the increase in e.g. CO2 that drives an increase in temperature which then increases the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold, increasing it's greenhouse effect.

[CarlBar]

43 minutes ago, tikker said:

That is because it's temperature that determines the amount of water vapour in the air and not the amount of water vapour in the air that determines temperature. Other greenhouse gases like CO2 don't condense, so pumping more CO2 into the air can increase the temperature whereas pumping more water vapour in the air doesn't really do so directly, because it will hit that limit at which point the water will condense and form clouds or rain back down to the surface. It can still create clouds and what not, of course, affecting it that way. It's an efficient greenhouse gas, but it's the increase in e.g. CO2 that drives an increase in temperature which then increases the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold, increasing it's greenhouse effect.

 

I have to question your understanding of global warming and the greenhouse effects. Increased cloud everywhere is the effect adding more water vapour to the atmosphere, and just as a cloudy night is hotter than a starlit one at the same time of year it makes it harder for the heat of the sun to leave the surface of the earth, (and ultimately radiate out into space), in fact thats what all greenhouse gasses do. And increased surface temperatures also mean increased temperatures at higher altitudes which make it harder for the water to come back down. his exact process taken to an extreme i doubt we could match artificially is what turned Venus into it's current scorching hell. The transformation of that water vapour into CO2, (via radiation induced breakdown in the upper atmosphere), came much, much, much later. The CO2 is sufficient to keep Venus scorching hot, but it isn't what actually started it.

 

personally and based on what little other discussion I've seen on the phenomenon, water vapour is having little effect ATM, but we also don't put much up there. if we where to transfer to hydrogen powered combustion engines though we'd have some real serious issues rather quickly.

 

 

 

 

[tikker]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

I have to question your understanding of global warming and the greenhouse effects. Increased cloud everywhere is the effect adding more water vapour to the atmosphere, and just as a cloudy night is hotter than a starlit one at the same time of year it makes it harder for the heat of the sun to leave the surface of the earth, (and ultimately radiate out into space), in fact thats what all greenhouse gasses do. And increased surface temperatures also mean increased temperatures at higher altitudes which make it harder for the water to come back down. And increased surface temperatures also mean increased temperatures at higher altitudes which make it harder for the water to come back down.

Not sure why you have to immediately resort to personal attack when I'm basically agreeing with you. Yes clouds indeed trap heat and water vapour is a great greenhouse gas (GHG). It's been fueling a natural greenhouse effect (GHE) for a long time that helps us stay alive in the first place. However, you need a temperature increase, to store additional water vapour in the atmosphere. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years [NASA], compared to something like days maybe weeks for water, giving it ample opportunity to provide that gradual warming, which is then amplified by the water.

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

his exact process taken to an extreme i doubt we could match artificially is what turned Venus into it's current scorching hell. The transformation of that water vapour into CO2, (via radiation induced breakdown in the upper atmosphere), came much, much, much later. The CO2 is sufficient to keep Venus scorching hot, but it isn't what actually started it.

Subtle difference being that it was the intense solar radiation evaporating, presumedly, the entirety of Venus' oceans dumping an inconceivable amount of water vapour in its atmosphere, raising temperatures to rock-melting 1500 K [Kasting 1988]. That's luckily not what's happening on Earth yet.

 

You are right that water is a powerful GHG, but for us the major problem is that water-vapour feedback loop caused by the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. That CO2 raises the temperature, causing atmosphere to be able to hold more water vapour and consequently greatly amplifying the GHE, because water vapour is an effective GHG. I gather you know probably know this, but that's why it's the human (anthropogenic) GHE that is the problem and not the GHE in general. The IPCC reports also conclude that it's our CO2 / GHG emissions that have driven climate change. So yes water vapour is a stronger GHG than CO2, no the (priority) focus should not be on reducing (our) water vapour (output).

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

Not sure why you have to immediately resort to personal attack when I'm basically agreeing with you. Yes clouds indeed trap heat and water vapour is a great greenhouse gas (GHG). It's been fueling a natural greenhouse effect (GHE) for a long time that helps us stay alive in the first place. However, you need a temperature increase, to store additional water vapour in the atmosphere. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years [NASA], compared to something like days maybe weeks for water, giving it ample opportunity to provide that gradual warming, which is then amplified by the water.

Subtle difference being that it was the intense solar radiation evaporating, presumedly, the entirety of Venus' oceans dumping an inconceivable amount of water vapour in its atmosphere, raising temperatures to rock-melting 1500 K [Kasting 1988]. That's luckily not what's happening on Earth yet.

 

You are right that water is a powerful GHG, but for us the major problem is that water-vapour feedback loop caused by the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. That CO2 raises the temperature, causing atmosphere to be able to hold more water vapour and consequently greatly amplifying the GHE, because water vapour is an effective GHG. I gather you know probably know this, but that's why it's the human (anthropogenic) GHE that is the problem and not the GHE in general. The IPCC reports also conclude that it's our CO2 / GHG emissions that have driven climate change. So yes water vapour is a stronger GHG than CO2, no the (priority) focus should not be on reducing (our) water vapour (output).

 

I feel like some wires got crossed. It sounded initially like you where "it's water it can't raise the temperature" line of thinking. I've run into it a few times and i completely misunderstood what you where trying to say.

 

Also i wasn't saying we need to focus on Water vapour right now, but instead that it would become an issue if we started trying to use Hydrogen to replace fossil fuels directly, (like say in ICE's), then we'd be putting a heck of a lot more of it into the atmosphere every year. It's not a big problem atm, but it could become one if we got too happy burning hydrogen.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/13/2021 at 5:54 PM, CarlBar said:

It's not somthing that would have worked well, (or was intended to work at all), in atmosphere.

sorry, i know im late haha, but why you think that?

Mr Dyson says otherwise in the movie about it, he hilariously calculated that a launch from earth would "kill 1-2 people per year" and thought that was "acceptable" ...

 

They did very much intend launching from earth, youre right about the mass, hence it would not be feasible to launch otherwise (with rockets or something) way too heavy...

 

i think what ultimately put a hold on it was the treaty that disallowed nuclear testing in the atmosphere... but even otherwise i don't think it would have ever worked out, but for political/financial reasons,  not because it wouldn't have worked, they proved it working without nuclear explosions very well (of course durability of the plate etc is still a huge question mark imo...)

 

 

ps: movie is called "To Mars By A Bomb - The Secret History of Project Orion (Nuclear Propulsion)" by the BBC, definitely worth watching if you haven't yet.