Battery technology

[Denny Crane!]

Anyone who has ever used a mobile phone or a laptop knows that the technology we have for batteries can be troublesome at times. It is also the main reason that we don't have electric cars yet.

Over the last few years I've read of about 20 breakthroughs in battery technology, from carbon batteries, nano carbon batteries, air batteries, supercallafragalistic lithium ion batteries and yet not one has ever made it to market.

Does anyone have any insight into this market? Is this just the likes of MIT hyping up their own research to get more money?

[Ramashan]

I just read an article in The Newyorker about Lithium deposits in Bolivia and its potential effects on the Bolivian and US economy. Essentially, the break through in using Lithium batteries has allowed us to have smaller lighter weight electronics such as computers and cell phones. This explosion only occurred for the consumer in the 90's when the technology itself was first created in the 70's. It seems that since then there has been a lot tweeks made to the tech to make it better. Perhaps we haven't seen more recent advancement for several reasons;

Cost

legal issues like that mentioned in the wiki:

In 2004, Chiang again increased performance by utilizing iron-phosphate particles of less than 100 nanometers (nm) in diameter. This decreased the particle density by almost a hundredfold, increased the surface area of the electrode and improved the battery's capacity and performance. Commercialization of the iron-phosphate technology led to a competitive market and a patent infringement battle between Chiang and Goodenough.[22]

And quite possibly the fact that the lithium technology is so invasive in all electronics that there may be some resistance to changing it.

But, in the end, I have only some theories.

[Elfdude]

I would say Ramashan is on the right track. Typically it's taken a long time for certain break-throughs to hit the public especially when there's little incentive to use them. Advanced battery technology directly threatens how many industries? Generally I blame the lack of technological advancement going on on companies who have figured out it's easier to give people a little bit here and a little bit there and charge outrageous prices. There's little reason electronics aren't significantly cheaper or more advanced by now, the industry though is the primary resistence.

Also infinite market theory. With no corporate R&D there's not an easy way to get corporations to use advanced technologies until another corporation does or until the market has been saturated.

More or less theory crafting but I would pin a lot of stupidity on corporations, greed and politics.

[Denny Crane!]

I would say Ramashan is on the right track. Typically it's taken a long time for certain break-throughs to hit the public especially when there's little incentive to use them. Advanced battery technology directly threatens how many industries? Generally I blame the lack of technological advancement going on on companies who have figured out it's easier to give people a little bit here and a little bit there and charge outrageous prices. There's little reason electronics aren't significantly cheaper or more advanced by now, the industry though is the primary resistence.

Also infinite market theory. With no corporate R&D there's not an easy way to get corporations to use advanced technologies until another corporation does or until the market has been saturated.

More or less theory crafting but I would pin a lot of stupidity on corporations, greed and politics.

No corporate r and d? No that isn't true I'm afraid.

[Elfdude]

No corporate r and d? No that isn't true I'm afraid.

Corporate R&D drastically fell to nearly nothing in the 70's when infinite market theory was endorsed by Ronald Reagan even though it was empirically false. The idea is that if you have infinite competitors and every competitor benefits from R&D it's a waste for your corporation to spend money on it. This lead to corporate grants to pay for R&D. It does not take into account finite competition nor does it take into account the delay in implementing technology.

The united states R&D was gutted by that theory. Previously it was widely believed that the way to improve the economy was to march forward as fast as possible technologically. I.E. idea behind making electricity cheaper than candles, the idea behind making aluminum cheaper than gold, etc. etc. was killed by this modern economic theory that is purely . Obviously the trait was in corporations before infinite market theory but infinite market theory allowed corporations to convince politicians and in turn take further advantage of the government.

Many corporations are not driven by this idea but that doesn't mean they don't take advantage of it in the political atmosphere. Nor does it change corporate incentive to charge as much for an item today and release the technology tomorrow.

For example creative sounds was known for a scandal in which they decided all of the sound technology had already been discovered therefore their R&D was pointless and fired most of their engineers.

Also this is sheerly opinion and conjecture (which I stated earlier). All I have to back up that idea is correlation.

[Denny Crane!]

Corporate R&D drastically fell to nearly nothing in the 70's when infinite market theory was endorsed by Ronald Reagan even though it was empirically false. The idea is that if you have infinite competitors and every competitor benefits from R&D it's a waste for your corporation to spend money on it. This lead to corporate grants to pay for R&D. It does not take into account finite competition nor does it take into account the delay in implementing technology.

The united states R&D was gutted by that theory. Previously it was widely believed that the way to improve the economy was to march forward as fast as possible technologically. I.E. idea behind making electricity cheaper than candles, the idea behind making aluminum cheaper than gold, etc. etc. was killed by this modern economic theory that is purely . Obviously the trait was in corporations before infinite market theory but infinite market theory allowed corporations to convince politicians and in turn take further advantage of the government.

Many corporations are not driven by this idea but that doesn't mean they don't take advantage of it in the political atmosphere. Nor does it change corporate incentive to charge as much for an item today and release the technology tomorrow.

For example creative sounds was known for a scandal in which they decided all of the sound technology had already been discovered therefore their R&D was pointless and fired most of their engineers.

Also this is sheerly opinion and conjecture (which I stated earlier). All I have to back up that idea is correlation.

I don't about the 70's but it is totally false today. Whether you want to talk about Microsofts staggering 10.5 billion research and development budget or the 800 million in venture capital alone used by just one oil company research and development is one of the biggest areas of focus for corporations today.

[Ramashan]

I don't think the issue lies in corporate R&D. Corporations need to invest in this in order to keep things rolling, no one wants things to stagnate and the consumer always demands change. What I meant by my comments regarding resistance to change is that if you have several products on the market that take a particular type of battery, you generally want your stuff to be backwards compatible so that you don't have to redesign everything and make the product obsolete.

If a new battery tech requires a systemic change, there may be more resistance to make it if the costs travel down the lines and in the end the consumers have to A. buy all new equipment or B. pay a lot more for a product that is untested. This is also the reason why many first gen products are so dang expensive. Over time it gets better. So, its easier to focus your R&D on streamlining and making current tech better.

So, new products, such as batteries, I believe, really need to show a marked increase in ability and longevity in order for them to replace existing tech. I mean look at automobiles. We've had various forms of fuel, motors, and batteries in existence since the Hydrogen Fuel cell was invented in 1839. But only now, over a century and a half later, are we seeing any drive to make changes.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think the issue lies in corporate R&D. Corporations need to invest in this in order to keep things rolling, no one wants things to stagnate and the consumer always demands change. What I meant by my comments regarding resistance to change is that if you have several products on the market that take a particular type of battery, you generally want your stuff to be backwards compatible so that you don't have to redesign everything and make the product obsolete.

If a new battery tech requires a systemic change, there may be more resistance to make it if the costs travel down the lines and in the end the consumers have to A. buy all new equipment or B. pay a lot more for a product that is untested. This is also the reason why many first gen products are so dang expensive. Over time it gets better. So, its easier to focus your R&D on streamlining and making current tech better.

So, new products, such as batteries, I believe, really need to show a marked increase in ability and longevity in order for them to replace existing tech. I mean look at automobiles. We've had various forms of fuel, motors, and batteries in existence since the Hydrogen Fuel cell was invented in 1839. But only now, over a century and a half later, are we seeing any drive to make changes.

Well that is a reasonable point of view but the claims made about these new battery technologies means the first company to come to market with them will smash their competition into tiny bits with their instant charging super light technology. It would be worth losing the backwards compatibilities.

It is with this in mind that I suspect the problem lies in the technology itself.

[Ramashan]

And there it is, so far its not reliable enough, powerful enough, and manageable enough to make it worth while.

There's all sorts of interesting tech on the horizon, its just a matter of making it practical. Like wireless power, contact base charging, nano-chargers. My guess is that its the cost factor that is keeping it down.

But, I would need to do more research.

[Tiwaz]

And let's not forget something essential...

Electricity has to be generated and transferred!

That is huge hurdle on electric cars. Do they produce pollutants? No, but electricity has to be made somehow first... And if you start replacing cars with battery versions, you have to make huge amounts of it.

And then transfer... Can't put infinite amperage through existing distribution networks. Those have to be upgraded too were electric cars become prominent.

So there is little incentive to go too far for battery manufacturers. If you have revolutionary system which enables instant recharge, but it cannot be used widely because it would overload electricity providers...

Well, by the time electric networks can take the load, your competitors have caught up cheaper because now they know what kind of stuff you have to study to get there.

[Denny Crane!]

And let's not forget something essential...

Electricity has to be generated and transferred!

That is huge hurdle on electric cars. Do they produce pollutants? No, but electricity has to be made somehow first... And if you start replacing cars with battery versions, you have to make huge amounts of it.

And then transfer... Can't put infinite amperage through existing distribution networks. Those have to be upgraded too were electric cars become prominent.

So there is little incentive to go too far for battery manufacturers. If you have revolutionary system which enables instant recharge, but it cannot be used widely because it would overload electricity providers...

Well, by the time electric networks can take the load, your competitors have caught up cheaper because now they know what kind of stuff you have to study to get there.

Tiwaz it is all very true but has nothing to do with the thread to be honest though it is relevant. I'm aware of the weaknesses of the grid and other problems but I proposed this thread with a singular aspect in mind, that of storage, deliverance is a topic in of itself. One that should be addressed.

[Tiwaz]

Tiwaz it is all very true but has nothing to do with the thread to be honest though it is relevant. I'm aware of the weaknesses of the grid and other problems but I proposed this thread with a singular aspect in mind, that of storage, deliverance is a topic in of itself. One that should be addressed.

If you read my whole message, you notice that I point out that there is really no incentive to go balls to the walls with R&D if there is no existing infrastructure to take advantage of it.

Let's say tomorrow I invent great battery tech which stores lots of energy and can be loaded in an instant.
I am global leader in the tech.

But I cannot really cash in with this technology until infrastructure supports cars with voracious electrical appetite.

I could sell few cars which run at full recharge, but not too many or I start receiving complaints of blown up fuses or other issues with the grid. So to sell in bulk, I would have to limit the recharge rates somehow.

That in turn would cause interest to my car drop as people want their cars to fill up fast.
I would make profit, but they would go into covering my R&D costs for a very long time. And my competitors would look at my car tech to figure out how I managed to do it.

5-10 years from now infrastructure exists, now I am ready to make really big money with flashcharged electric cars.
Problem is, my competitors have roughly same stuff out in the markets now as well, and their R&D costs were fraction of mine. I have lost most of my edge at this point.

So, while R&D is there, it has to be balanced against costs and estimate of how long it would take to cover those costs while competitors catch up.
You have to sort out delivery issues before any large scale R&D into actual batteries and rechargers makes any sense.

[Denny Crane!]

If you read my whole message, you notice that I point out that there is really no incentive to go balls to the walls with R&D if there is no existing infrastructure to take advantage of it.

Let's say tomorrow I invent great battery tech which stores lots of energy and can be loaded in an instant.
I am global leader in the tech.

But I cannot really cash in with this technology until infrastructure supports cars with voracious electrical appetite.

I could sell few cars which run at full recharge, but not too many or I start receiving complaints of blown up fuses or other issues with the grid. So to sell in bulk, I would have to limit the recharge rates somehow.

That in turn would cause interest to my car drop as people want their cars to fill up fast.
I would make profit, but they would go into covering my R&D costs for a very long time. And my competitors would look at my car tech to figure out how I managed to do it.

5-10 years from now infrastructure exists, now I am ready to make really big money with flashcharged electric cars.
Problem is, my competitors have roughly same stuff out in the markets now as well, and their R&D costs were fraction of mine. I have lost most of my edge at this point.

So, while R&D is there, it has to be balanced against costs and estimate of how long it would take to cover those costs while competitors catch up.
You have to sort out delivery issues before any large scale R&D into actual batteries and rechargers makes any sense.

Your assuming that new technology means it has to make a new massive demand on the system, that the only reason to develop new technology is for a new industry. When in fact more energy efficiency and longer battery lives in the things we have are what we demand right now and we could reduce the burden on the grid not enhance it.

Besides which until we really start feeling the demand, the utter neccessity to upgrade the grid. Case in point is the fact that it has been needed for years and hasn't happened.

[Tiwaz]

Your assuming that new technology means it has to make a new massive demand on the system, that the only reason to develop new technology is for a new industry. When in fact more energy efficiency and longer battery lives in the things we have are what we demand right now and we could reduce the burden on the grid not enhance it.

Besides which until we really start feeling the demand, the utter neccessity to upgrade the grid. Case in point is the fact that it has been needed for years and hasn't happened.

Well, there are two facts which make massive demand in case of widespread use definite.

First is physics. To store X amount of energy, you need X+losses of energy transferred to it. That means grid use for electric vehicles.
Second is more psychological. Humans overall just do not want to wait. We want it conveniently and we want it fast. This means hours of wait to top up your car is inconvenient for large public.

Regarding efficiency, I can agree with that. If we could make electric engines which give same output for reduced drain, it could be useful. But in this thread we have spoken of battery technology.

Batteries, no matter how efficient, cannot escape those two serious problems I mentioned before. They cannot store more energy than they receive. So we are again at square one. So no matter how much more energy you can store in a battery of same size, it will not reduce it's energy needs.

Do we go for a short recharge and heavy grid use, which means that large a number of batteries used at the same time will cause delivery issues, or do we go for slow charge and hope the customer is not too inconvenienved...

[Ramashan]

The real key into what the consumer is going to get is to look at groups such as DARPA and the US Military. What technology are they using? Have they changed their technology? What technology is NASA using on the probes their designing today (can't look at the active ones since they tend to be 3 to 5 years behind by the time they get to launch phase)

It really is an exciting world right now for the amount of tech in the research and R&D stage, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what makes it into our homes.