Game changer battery for electric vehicles/PCs etc is on the way, at last!

Unfortunately that's not the case.

The reaction consumes the aluminum, creating aluminum-oxide.
The problem is that that "recycling" (which is converting Al2O3 to pure Al) is a very energy heavy process, so the electricity going to produce pure aluminum metal is a lot higher than the energy that comes out of this "miracle" battery. The conversion efficiency is even worse than running on dirty cheap gasoline.

This entire thing is a completely retarded idea for normal use cars, or anything else that needs to recharge/reuse all the time.

It might be useful only in special applications, like one-use-then-throw-away things... military stuff, rockets, bombs... where they need energy to power the smart munition electronics and obviously they don't care about the waste (since it will explode anyway).

 

A point that needs raising for sure.
My assumption has been they have a feasible method of reclaiming the aluminium.
Or perhaps the aluminium oxide has another use? (I'm not a chemist)

There is an offset to be considered.
It costs to charge the current rechargeable batteries throughout the life, I'm not sure this was included in the implementation cost for Tesla. This is on top of the £30,000 cost of the battery, imagine the overall cost is higher.
If the equivalent energy is used to reconstitute the aluminium, a certain % more will be needed to finish the job.
This extra % (plus handling) is why I anticipate there will be an increase in the price of this new battery for recycling.
The cost of recharging the rechargeable battery would need to be applied to both, so the initial £5,000 and £30,000 price tags should both be higher with the extra reclaiming % on top of the aluminium battery.

There will need to be an initial investment for re-processing plants.
But I doubt it will be prohibitive because the initial price difference is so large.
And this battery tech makes long distance electric cars a realisable proposition without even needing charge points and the time associated to recharge.

I am eager to hear what they do.

 

Exactly same story as using Alkaline (non-rechargeable) vs Nickel-Metal (or other tech, Rechargeable)

- The non-rechargeable battery is much cheaper, but only 3-4 times cheaper than rechargeable one
- The rechargeable however can be reused 500-1000 times, paying only for the electricity going in (and about 70-80% of it going back out, the rest is lost as heat)
- The non-rechargeable holds twice more energy in it and doesn't self-discharge, useful for objects that don't consume much (clocks, remotes, doorbell) and/or are rarely used (toys, flashlight, etc.)
- Cost wise, battery + electricity, the rechargeable wins by a factor of 100!! That's why almost everything today that consumes more than a few milliwatts has rechargeable batteries.
Imagine how totally crazy it would be if every 3-4 days you would need to swap out your phone's battery with new ones !!

Using a non-rechargeable in a car is pure insanity, even if it lasts twice or three times as much as rechargeable - What if it's near depletion in some remote village where there's no way in hell you can get a new one to swap it out ? Call the tow truck company using diesel engine to get you to the next big city where they sell replacements. And pay a shitton in the process...
What if it's out of stock ? Ooops, sorry, no batteries... no driving. Can't recharge it.

This guy is seriously high (intoxicated) if he thinks such idea would work in practice. Even more high are those that give him money for this ludicrous nonsense.

 

just do this....much cheaper and easier with no waste!



sorry Mufflore but I just had to....

 

lack of a reverse gear could be problematic.........

Anyhow on topic I can't imagine these doing anything but wreck the environment and cost us normal human beings too much to bother.

 

Its not exactly the same, nowhere close.
Aluminium can be reclaimed/recycled, other battery types cannot.
And the initial outlay is very low without much more over the long term.

Your comparison to not finding a battery has to be applied to not finding a charge point.
This batteries energy density is so high you can have a small spare to get you easily 100 miles.
And there will be a miles left/reserve indicator just like any other vehicle so you can gauge your journey.

Dont forget the added advantages of a lot longer journeys before having to refuel and not waiting hours for it to happen.

 

lol
In your opinion, what would make it difficult to have a reverse gear?

You did see that it is recyclable?

 

"recyclable" != "energy efficient"

Yes it might be recyclable, but if the recycling uses 10-20 times more energy than a simple recharge of a common rechargeable battery pack.... how does that make any sense?

Precisely.
It's a completely terrible idea with no real life application. No car manufacturer would pick up on such a stupid proposal.

Imagine if having to swap out the gas tank every time at a gas station instead of just sticking the pump's head in the car's side... lol.

 

I was just giving some snark to airbud7s pic.

As far as being recyclable It's just a buzzword really. If you take a look at what it would take to recycle these things I'm sure it involves dangerous chemicals and massive amounts of electricity and who knows what else.

 

It wont take twice the amount of energy reconstituting aluminium.
There is a loss but not on the scale you say.

Precisely what?

Compare to electric vehicles, petrol/diesel powered are being phased out.

 

Cool

A bit more electrical energy will be required to reconstitute the aluminium than was gained from the battery.
I dont see the need for dangerous chemicals.

 

Nuclear cars please...lets just cut to the chase.
Fill it once, good for 10000 years.

 

My calendar says 2019, not 1959.

The "nuclear age" (fission) has passed... and "fusion age" is not yet with us (and it might not be within our lifetimes).
We are currently in the "renewables" age (solar, wind, geothermal, wave energy) .... so electricity, batteries.

Tesla is doing really well with their Supercharger network, which is extending in Europe too (slow, but it does).
Those chargers are so powerful that even 20 mins spent drinking coffee at the coffee shop near the charging station is enough to take you another 100km (and probably all the way home until doing an overnight full charge).
Wait times for charging are no longer an issue for THEIR cars.

The competition however is still stuck with slow-charging, thumb-fumbling 5-hour wait for that 100km...

 

Ok, can this be substantiate and tested by independent researchers?
More, somehow I can't for the life of me image the following scenario: All population goes electric vehicles and at rush hour or return home the power grid will be just insanely oversaturated, or rather leeched by so many things charging.

 

I drive ~200 miles a month. I could probably get away with an electric vehicle that has parts of its surface acting as a trickle charger between trips.

 

I agree, as things are it isnt possible.
If we end up using rechargeable cars, perhaps there will be a cheaper more environmentally friendly battery with a huge range and/or charge rate that we wont need chargers at our homes. Or perhaps just a trickle charger to charge a small amount overnight so you can get to a garage/charge point the next day.
This way the infrastructure to our streets wont need to change much.

The aluminium battery, if it is as feasible as hoped, will allow for the status quo as well.
These batteries are not plugged in, they remain charged until they run out of aluminium and are then replaced.
Electricity needed to reclaim the aluminium will be supplied to a reprocessing plant.

I am in no doubt technology will have advanced a lot by the time it really matters as there is much more development due to the inevitable demise of the petrol car, and the promise of big bucks.

 

Sometimes I wonder why do news outlets regurgitate stuff without even bothering to check the most basic facts and notions of what is being presented ?
Then there's the people who actually believe all the fake news trash.

Here, have a Thunderf00t video instead explaining it all:


... which is exactly what I wrote earlier:

Actually I think I was off, it probably needs over 100 times more energy IN than stored energy, in order to get reacting Aluminium (due to high temperature necessary to separate Al from (HO3) , and of course the costs of shaping it back into a battery.
And many other problems related to Aluminium reactions (exothermic, gets extremely hot, and changes in volume)

p.s.
This is what the dude is holding in his hands:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=BA-5590/U&iax=images&ia=images

A military radio lithium battery (which he probably stole from where he served in the past):
http://www.prc68.com/I/BA5590.shtml


@Mufflore you should be ashamed of yourself to post this tabloid trash here.

 

...

 

You better watch your mouth Boy!....this is an open Forum here Dude!

Get over it.

 

Who is more credible ?
Trevor Jackson,
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/trevor-jackson-7985984

Philip E. Mason
British chemist and YouTuber with the online pseudonym Thunderf00t. He is known for criticising religion, pseudoscience (including creationism) and feminism. He works at the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason

Criticising does not bust anything.