Batteries Suck

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

I think what we need for cars isn't necessarily batteries, but rather a better fuel-based generator...

There's already been work to make improvements to traditional ICEs. The problem though is if you want the fuel to burn better, you need to feed it more air. Except if you feed it more air in a given volume, pressure goes up. And when pressure goes up, temperature goes up. And when that goes up, you get premature detonations.

 

Either way, Mazda has their SkyActiv system and Infiniti recently came out with a variable compression ratio engine.

 

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

I wonder what the numbers are for fuel cells...

They're a lot better than batteries, but the problem is they're expensive for widespread consumer use. Plus the fuel they use tends to be either hydrogen (which is very explosive) or methanol (which is extremely toxic).

 

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

But hey, maybe graphene could actually revolutionize batteries within the next few years, who knows. I hope I get to see what we can actually do with it.

I think these use lithium still as the charge carrier. A quick find for literature just points out that graphene based batteries offer quicker charge times.

 

Also there's another point about battery tech. The more energy you pack into a given volume, the more dangerous it becomes when it has a catastrophic failure. So I wouldn't jump on the nearest higher-energy-density system you can find until you're certain that catastrophic failures can be mitigated.

[Dash Lambda]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

There's already been work to make improvements to traditional ICEs. The problem though is if you want the fuel to burn better, you need to feed it more air. Except if you feed it more air in a given volume, pressure goes up. And when pressure goes up, temperature goes up. And when that goes up, you get premature detonations.

 

Either way, Mazda has their SkyActiv system and Infiniti recently came out with a variable compression ratio engine.

ICE's are fundamentally flawed, though. They're environmentally damaging, and they rely on a limited resource.

I'm not obsessive about 'save the Earth" stuff, but the fact that we still rely so heavily on petroleum appalls me.

 

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

They're a lot better than batteries, but the problem is they're expensive for widespread consumer use. Plus the fuel they use tends to be either hydrogen (which is very explosive) or methanol (which is extremely toxic).

Fuel-cells are also hardly even pursued by the industry. I wonder how cheap we could manage to make them...

Isn't methanol also used quite commonly for ICE's?

 

19 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I think these use lithium still as the charge carrier. A quick find for literature just points out that graphene based batteries offer quicker charge times.

 

Also there's another point about battery tech. The more energy you pack into a given volume, the more dangerous it becomes when it has a catastrophic failure. So I wouldn't jump on the nearest higher-energy-density system you can find until you're certain that catastrophic failures can be mitigated.

Yeah, I haven't seen an entirely graphene-based cell. In fact, I don't even know how that would chemically work...

 

As for safety, I think we've got a ways to go before we really need to worry about exploding batteries.

Even so, there does still come a point when you run into the 'warp-core' problem, where your source of energy has to be something incredibly dangerous and volatile, but... I don't think we're even close.

[Mira Yurizaki]

9 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

ICE's are fundamentally flawed, though. They're environmentally damaging, and they rely on a limited resource.

I'm not obsessive about 'save the Earth" stuff, but the fact that we still rely so heavily on petroleum appalls me.

Yes but exploding stuff is the best way to make something move. Everything else releases energy too slowly to work efficiently enough. Plus you can't think about energy in the short term, you have to think about energy over time and per person. This is why despite a 737 eating up tons of fuel over a 2000 mile trip, per person, it is much more efficient than having those people drive their own Prius the same distance.

 

Besides, ideally, fossil fuels should only output water and carbon dioxide. We're just bad at cleaning it up beforehand.

Quote

Fuel-cells are also hardly even pursued by the industry. I wonder how cheap we could manage to make them...

Isn't methanol also used quite commonly for ICE's?

You're thinking of ethanol (which probably is denatured with methanol)

 

Quote

As for safety, I think we've got a ways to go before we really need to worry about exploding batteries.

Even so, there does still come a point when you run into the 'warp-core' problem, where your source of energy has to be something incredibly dangerous and volatile, but... I don't think we're even close.

The ideal high-density energy source would not require a person specializing in its operation to run it though. If you cannot achieve that level of usability, then it's not going to get wide acceptance in the consumer market.

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Yes but exploding stuff is the best way to make something move. Everything else releases energy too slowly to work efficiently enough.

It's the easiest way to make something move. Petroleum was great for industrialization, it was quick and dirty easy power. We're past that point now, though, and there are cleaner, cheaper, and more lasting solutions. We're just too invested and too lazy as a species to go anywhere quickly.

Sorry if I sound aggressive or opinionated, there are just certain things about this world that I hate for whatever reason.

 

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Besides, ideally, fossil fuels should only output water and carbon dioxide. We're just bad at cleaning it up beforehand.

You're thinking of ethanol (which probably is denatured with methanol)

I'm reading in a few places that methanol is one of the more commonly used fuels...

 

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The ideal high-density energy source would not require a person specializing in its operation to run it though. If you cannot achieve that level of usability, then it's not going to get wide acceptance in the consumer market.

Are you talking about the warp-core thing? 'Cause that's not the aspect of it I was talking about...

[Zodiark1593]

30 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

It's the easiest way to make something move. Petroleum was great for industrialization, it was quick and dirty easy power. We're past that point now, though, and there are cleaner, cheaper, and more lasting solutions. We're just too invested and too lazy as a species to go anywhere quickly.

Sorry if I sound aggressive or opinionated, there are just certain things about this world that I hate for whatever reason.

 

I'm reading in a few places that methanol is one of the more commonly used fuels...

 

Are you talking about the warp-core thing? 'Cause that's not the aspect of it I was talking about...

I agree wholeheartedly on the problem of relying upon a finite resource. Problem is that without substantial lifestyle changes within the greater part of humanity, liquid fuels possesses nearly ideal characteristics, as far as energy density, and actually moving it from one place to another. 

 

Battery packs impose harsh limitations in regards to range due to lack of density, the rarity of fast charge stations, and the time it takes to fully charge a battery (not counting any damage incurred through fast charging). For solely city driving and short-range commute, battery tech is more than suitable. For lengthy trips or commutes, batteries cannot yet keep up with such demand in energy. 

 

Without a major breakthrough in battery technology, the best replacement for petroleum will inevitably be another (artificial?)  liquid fuel, unless, of course, you're happy with the idea of everyone driving around in small, portable nuclear reactors. 

 

Tl'dr : What is required is a form of energy storage that requires as little intervention as possible in regards to what people are already used to with gas powered vehicles.

[Mira Yurizaki]

34 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

It's the easiest way to make something move. Petroleum was great for industrialization, it was quick and dirty easy power. We're past that point now, though, and there are cleaner, cheaper, and more lasting solutions. We're just too invested and too lazy as a species to go anywhere quickly.

Sorry if I sound aggressive or opinionated, there are just certain things about this world that I hate for whatever reason.

While I'll be more inclined to believe for lower speed applications we could definitely move onto other means of generating energy for locomotion, however, as it stands, there's nothing that can match the efficiency of exploding something for high speed applications at the moment.

 

The problem I believe really isn't so much the type of fuel we're using, it's just that we're using it inefficiently. A bus can achieve a per-person fuel efficiency of 330MPG if the bus is full.

 

A lot of my issue with transportation culture is that people feel the need for personalized transportation, when in fact it's the least efficient way of moving people for most of their daily routines.

 

Quote

I'm reading in a few places that methanol is one of the more commonly used fuels...

It's not. It's only used for specialty applications when using an ICE, like for racing or motorsports. But otherwise it's toxicity is too much for the average person to handle. As little as 30mL is fatal

 

Quote

Are you talking about the warp-core thing? 'Cause that's not the aspect of it I was talking about...

I'm talking about any energy source in general. For example I'm all for nuclear power because there are ways to use it more safely than before. But it's not like it'll be commercialized into consumer products because well, nuclear power is something that requires a person specialized in it to operate smoothly. Well, save for the thermonuclear batteries but that's a different story.

[Dash Lambda]

9 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I agree wholeheartedly on the problem of relying upon a finite resource. Problem is that without substantial lifestyle changes within the greater part of humanity, liquid fuels possesses nearly ideal characteristics, as far as energy density, and actually moving it from one place to another. 

 

Battery packs impose harsh limitations in regards to range due to lack of density, the rarity of fast charge stations, and the time it takes to fully charge a battery (not counting any damage incurred through fast charging). 

Like I said, humanity is too invested and too lazy to do anything before it becomes a problem.

 

9 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

-unless, of course, you're happy with the idea of everyone driving around in small, portable nuclear reactors. 

I'd love to see what kind of world would think that's perfectly reasonable. I bet there'd also be land-based cars where the drive train is replaced with a jet.

 

5 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

While I'll be more inclined to believe for lower speed applications we could definitely move onto other means of generating energy for locomotion, however, as it stands, there's nothing that can match the efficiency of exploding something for high speed applications at the moment.

 

The problem I believe really isn't so much the type of fuel we're using, it's just that we're using it inefficiently. A bus can achieve a per-person fuel efficiency of 330MPG if the bus is full.

Aren't ICE's only around 30% efficient at best?

My numbers are hardly complete or well researched, so I'm not entirely certain...

 

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's not. It's only used for specialty applications when using an ICE, like for racing or motorsports. But otherwise it's toxicity is too much for the average person to handle. As little as 30mL is fatal

Huh... I guess I was reading about those specialty uses then.

 

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm talking about any energy source in general. For example I'm all for nuclear power because there are ways to use it more safely than before. But it's not like it'll be commercialized into consumer products because well, nuclear power is something that requires a person specialized in it to operate smoothly. Well, save for the thermonuclear batteries but that's a different story.

Nuclear power is not the best example, there are a lot of issues with it getting into consumer devices. Funny enough, most people think it's because nuclear reactors are somehow mechanically identical to nuclear bombs... Which I guess means that one of the bigger problems is "people don't understand what the hell it is and are scared..."

... But yeah, I get your point.

 

I find it hard to imagine, though, that ICE's are just inherently simple to operate. An absurd amount of clever engineering got us to the point where they pretty much just work at the push of a button. We can make a lot of things easy to use.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

Like I said, humanity is too invested and too lazy to do anything before it becomes a problem.

 

I'd love to see what kind of world would think that's perfectly reasonable. I bet there'd also be land-based cars where the drive train is replaced with a jet.

 

 

I find it hard to imagine, though, that ICE's are just inherently simple to operate. An absurd amount of clever engineering got us to the point where they pretty much just work at the push of a button. We can make a lot of things easy to use.

We entrust people (sometimes very wrongly) with several tons of fast-moving metal every day. Provided a nuclear reactor can be made reliable enough to not turn into a catastrophe in the event of an accident, I do not see it as much of a stretch.

 

One of the interesting bits of the ICE is the conversion of reciprocating (up and down) movement into a rotating movement. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of energy lost there, however, for mechanical, gear driven vehicles, it seems to be more efficient than a turbine engine over a wider range of rpm.

 

I've said this multiple times before, but I wonder how well a turbine engine can work in a Hybrid (electric driven) vehicle. While a turbine engine has terrible torque and efficiency at low rpm, an electric drivetrain can eliminate that disadvantage while the turbine engine picks up rpm for the generator. At speed, a turbine engine boasts very impressive power/weight ratio, and can run on most flammable liquids, not just petroleum based fuels.

[Dash Lambda]

17 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

We entrust people (sometimes very wrongly) with several tons of fast-moving metal every day. Provided a nuclear reactor can be made reliable enough to not turn into a catastrophe in the event of an accident, I do not see it as much of a stretch.

 

One of the interesting bits of the ICE is the conversion of reciprocating (up and down) movement into a rotating movement. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of energy lost there, however, for mechanical, gear driven vehicles, it seems to be more efficient than a turbine engine over a wider range of rpm.

 

I've said this multiple times before, but I wonder how well a turbine engine can work in a Hybrid (electric driven) vehicle. While a turbine engine has terrible torque and efficiency at low rpm, an electric drivetrain can eliminate that disadvantage while the turbine engine picks up rpm for the generator. At speed, a turbine engine boasts very impressive power/weight ratio, and can run on most flammable liquids, not just petroleum based fuels.

The problem with a nuclear powered car isn't safety, it's practicality. Nuclear power isn't good for high energy output (relative to size), it isn't good for intermittent use, and it isn't good for mobile applications, while it IS good for large-scale, stationary, constant use, as well as long-term low-power use.

So, basically, it's good at all the things a car doesn't need and is bad at all the things a car needs.

Sure, you could manage to do it, but... Why?

(I'm of course talking about fission power, since fusion... Well, we're currently building the first potentially viable nuclear fusion reactor, and it's an international project spanning more than a decade to construct the most complicated single machine humanity has built to this point... So, yeah.)

 

As for turbines, well... I actually have no idea. Sounds like a good idea, though...

[Zodiark1593]

Just now, Dash Lambda said:

The problem with a nuclear powered car isn't safety, it's practicality. Nuclear power isn't good for high energy output (relative to size), it isn't good for intermittent use, and it isn't good for mobile applications, while it IS good for large-scale, stationary, constant use, as well as long-term low-power use.

So, basically, it's good at all the things a car doesn't need and is bad at all the things a car needs.

Sure, you could manage to do it, but... Why?

(I'm of course talking about fission power, since fusion... Well, we're currently building the first potentially viable nuclear fusion reactor, and it's an international project spanning more than a decade to construct the most complicated single machine humanity has built to this point... So, yeah.)

 

 

Well, lucky for you, I only brought up nuclear reactors for the purpose of sarcasm.

[Canada EH]

If you want to extend the life of your device, you should buy one of those USB power packs, You can get them from a few Ah up to tens of Ah.

I bought a 10Ah power pack for $15 or so. A cell phone does not have much juice. If you want more juice in a laptop, I have no idea how you go about a DIY battery pack with a laptop. I can only assume there is a BMS inside those to regulate the battery on its charge and discharge. Most likely there is a ton of technology in those OEM batteries because they are held liable if something happens.

 

If you go the Chinese way, who knows what you are getting. I hope you realize and everyone here realizes that they counterfeit those batteries too, and its easy to do. All the do is buy a heat shrink sleeve and you'd have no idea what you are getting without a capacity test. I have seen fakes that had a watch battery in them. Sure the voltage would be the same, but instead of 2Ah, you are getting 0.5Ah. Safety is a concern too.

 

People have taken out batteries from power tool batteries and used them. Home Depot is selling a pack called EGO or ECO or somthing. I cant remember what the voltage or Ah was, I think they had a variety of Ah, like 2Ah, 5Ah and 10Ah all at 60V. Great for an instant battery if the voltage suits your needs, like the Electric Bicycle community. Battery is under warranty too, with a return policy.  The price I find is about 2.5 to 3 times what it would cost to buy your own cells. Of course you could buy 12V and 18V ~3Ah packs for tools.

 

Since the explosion of cig vaporizors the market for cells have expanded.

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Well, lucky for you, I only brought up nuclear reactors for the purpose of sarcasm.

Yeah, that's why I didn't rant about how nuclear cars were a terrible idea at first, but...

But then you said they might actually be reasonable...

And then that reflex inside my head that has to bite everyone's ears off about bad ideas just sort of flinched...

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

Yeah, that's why I didn't rant about how nuclear cars were a terrible idea at first, but...

But then you said they might actually be reasonable...

And then that reflex inside my head that has to bite everyone's ears off about bad ideas just sort of flinched...

A forum "oops" moment on my part then. 

 

I wanted to point out, however, that cars give people a lot of power for a mere press of the throttle, at any place, any time, and it is something that is taken for granted by nearly everyone that drives. The nuclear reactors part was just a point of sarcasm meant to highlight that aspect.

 

Given how traditional reactors function, it isn't at all a practical means of energy generation/storage for personal cars. 

[Canada EH]

Gasoline power isnt as impressive as electric power. No power curve that gas has, electric is instant and max from the instant you press the gas.

Vehicles are peoples cocoons, very anonymous. People would never do what they do in a car if they were face to face. Its exactly like the internet.

 

Battery power, and electric power is not all that it is cracked up to be.

Think about where the batteries go once they provide all the energy density, capacity and discharge curve they can. Think about all the materials we took from Mother Earth, the carbon foot print we used just to make that battery. Throw into that mix, the same example making a vehicle. You can look at David Suzuki and Neil Young as spokesmen, but they are a joke. Neil Young drives around the country in several gas gussling buses, with all his semi trucks following him, he flies around in jets. He was on the news about the Oil Sands, yet his busses were running all night long when he rolled through town. David, he has a few mansions and is a jet setter too. Take a look at anyone else who points a finger at the Oil Sands, gas exploration, pipelines, tankers etc etc etc........... and they too are hypocrites. They buy the Chevrolet Volt to make them look good in other people eyes, but consume plastics like the average Joe. They should buy a farm and grow their own food, or buy from the source. Not wear Polyester clothing. Etc etc etc.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

Aren't ICE's only around 30% efficient at best?

My numbers are hardly complete or well researched, so I'm not entirely certain...

I'm talking about other forms of combustion engines like jet engines. Let me know when there's a purely electric solution to drive a 100K ton body to 600MPH.

 

4 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

Huh... I guess I was reading about those specialty uses then.

Are you sure you're not thinking about methane though? Methane is a widely used fuel.

[Donut417]

23 hours ago, SamStrecker said:

So your saying we have hit a wall?

I found a article linked on Facebook. It was talking about the issues Samsung is having with the Note 7's battery. Now take this with a grain of salt, however it stated the experts feel we are at about 90% of what Lithium Ion can do. There is not much more they can do with the tech. Which is why companies like Samsung are trying to push more out of them, and then they start fires as a result.  So they need to find a new way to make batteries. 

[Dash Lambda]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm talking about other forms of combustion engines like jet engines. Let me know when there's a purely electric solution to drive a 100K ton body to 600MPH.

Ah. Yeah, nothing for that yet...

Though I really wouldn't mind combustion engines in aircraft if they didn't use petroleum-based nor dirty fuels, which is perfectly reasonable.

Combustion engines in mainstream land vehicles is completely pointless, though, with the technology currently available.

 

13 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Are you sure you're not thinking about methane though? Methane is a widely used fuel.

Yes I'm sure, I know the difference.

[Mira Yurizaki]

30 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

-snip-

I also thought of something else.

 

In any transportation engineering, you have to consider your dead weight. Fuel is considered dead weight, because it's not your cargo.

 

The thing with consumable fuel is your vehicle gets lighter as it's consumed. With a battery, that dead weight remains. While this may not be much for terrestrial based vehicles, it's a problem for flying vehicles.

 

Take for instance airplanes have a larger max takeoff weight than landing weight. The weight accounts for fuel. If you had a purely electric aircraft, you won't be able to hold as much cargo because your max takeoff weight is pretty much your landing weight now.

 

Also the reason why landing weight is a lot lower is because landing puts a huge stress on the airframe

[Dash Lambda]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

-snip-

I actually hadn't considered that...

We'd need a bit more than effective engines for electric aircraft, then. It's definitely not impossible, but we need advancements in a few different areas of technology before it's workable...

 

On a side note, there was that recent circumnavigation flight somebody made in a solar aircraft. It wasn't a cargo carrier, but it definitely wasn't tiny.

Actually, that thing had to have roughly the wingspan of a 747 to lift a one-person cockpit. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

On a side note, there was that recent circumnavigation flight somebody made in a solar aircraft. It wasn't a cargo carrier, but it definitely wasn't tiny.

Actually, that thing had to have roughly the wingspan of a 747 to lift a one-person cockpit. 

It also had a speed of like 30MPH or something slow. :3

[CtrlAltELITE]

The best battery is a tank of diesel! Although I may have a vested interest.

[BuckGup]

54 minutes ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

The best battery is a tank of diesel! Although I may have a vested interest.

I think rocket fuel is better

[Canada EH]

Super Capacitor tech looks interesting

[DebatED Nothing]

On 9/10/2016 at 1:57 AM, SamStrecker said:

It is 2016 why do batteries still suck? We used Nicad in the 90s then Nimh in the 2000s and now we use LiPo and Lion. But they still suck! If we made batteries last longer every problem we currently have will be gone. Seriously think about it. It might take some hops from what it originally effects but you could cure world hunger. You can make phones last weeks, laptops last days, electric cars drive for thousands of miles. So why do batteries still suck?

 

On 9/10/2016 at 2:01 AM, SamStrecker said:

So there is no way to have a better battery?

We can't just "make better batteries". That's not how physics works.

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, DebatED Nothing said:

 

We can't just "make better batteries". That's not how physics works.

Sure there is. We have moved from Nicad to Lipo within 20s. I am just saying the pace is too slow for what we need today