This sounds pretty exciting....
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/article_b0372fd8-3f3c-11de-ac77-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/article_b0372fd8-3f3c-11de-ac77-001cc4c002e0.html
New battery could change world, one house at a time
- Thread starter Finnegan
- Start date
I dunno. This and other cool things like it seem to get announced, then there is no follow up most of the time. I think lots of times, vested interests tend to buy these kinds of inventors/products out. I recall that back in the 70's/80's, many of the innovations in solar power, and wind, etc., were getting gobbled up by large corporations, never to be seen again.
Also, to make matters worse, it seems like some new charlatan comes out of the woodwork every month with some radical "free-energy" or "zero point" or "over-unity" device (so many videos on youtube!), or magnet driven motor that will supposedly change the world--then nothing more is never heard about it.
Maybe it's like the urban legends of the garage inventor who made a carburator that would give all our cars hundreds of miles to the gallon.....
Also, to make matters worse, it seems like some new charlatan comes out of the woodwork every month with some radical "free-energy" or "zero point" or "over-unity" device (so many videos on youtube!), or magnet driven motor that will supposedly change the world--then nothing more is never heard about it.
Maybe it's like the urban legends of the garage inventor who made a carburator that would give all our cars hundreds of miles to the gallon.....
If that battery can really do what they say, then using renewables would actually become feasible. No matter how much wind and solar come down in price, they are still intermittent. Without storage they could never provide baseload power. I'm skeptical about the progress that they claim to have made, but I'm also hopeful that it works.
Well it's rarely quite as dramatic and conspiratorial as all that, but you're partially right. On the one hand you've got true believers making claims they can't back up. I'v ebeen following this stuff for years, and after a while you get to recognize the weasel phrases: "We're very close to a breakthrough" (that neve rcomes), "We know it works in principle, we just need to bring the cost down" (by an order of magnitude), "We're doing something entirely new here. We're keeping it pretty close to the vest right now" (we still haven't done it, but if we could just convince some venture capitalists to give us another ten million, it would all work out.) And so on.
That's part of it, another part is governments and companies deicidng for various reasons to go in another direction, and the money dries up. Failed inventions aren't covered up, they jsut die of neglect and lack of interest. That's why the energy thing is so tricky, there are dozens of competing visions out there, fighting for money to develop their ideas.
Having said all that, I've heard about these guys before, and I think the climate may be right for them. There are countless industries clammoring for new battery technology, nothing is going to get bought up and suppressed in this case.
My only caveat - they sure do say "should" and "could" a lot, when talking about their breakthrough.
The only issue I see with solar-panels is if it's on devices such as cell-phones -- IBM has considered this idea among many others.
Technically it is possible for the government or a skilled hacker probably to activate a cell-phone's speaker even if turned off (The FBI has actually done this). The solution would be to remove the battery, but if the phone had a skin that was photo-voltaic, removing the battery wouldn't be an option.
Technically it is possible for the government or a skilled hacker probably to activate a cell-phone's speaker even if turned off (The FBI has actually done this). The solution would be to remove the battery, but if the phone had a skin that was photo-voltaic, removing the battery wouldn't be an option.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I wonder how well these batteries could work in an electric vehicle.
^I don't know how small they could make them. Right now they are around the size of a fridge. Now, a car wouldn't have the same power requirements, so perhaps they could build smaller versions.
In reality, there are scams (like Moller's Air Car) out there to separate investors from their money. And there are engineering dead-ends when something that LOOKED good at the beginning doesn't really work so well when it comes time for production.
As someone who flies electric R/C planes, I have no doubt that batteries will improve drastically and I wish them well.
But I wouldn't want to have something that can do THIS in my basement or car....
I would agree that in numerous instances, actual production of technology proved not to work so well ... but reality of the situation is that in most cases, technologies such as these that could effectively improve things by about a factor of 100 ... and they never come to be due to large and greedy corporations getting money out of outdated technologies and not moving on since it would be 'too much of a cost' ... plus techs that proved to not work so well in practice were for the most part scrapped and it was never really looked into WHY it didn't live up to it's expectations as it should have or that research was done to eliminate the obstacles in delivering what was stated on paper.
The article itself clearly states the US power grid for example is a relic based on a century old premise... a fitting example on how much behind the times we really are (if the US is any indication when compared to the rest of the globe).
this new concept is pretty great ... but whether or not it will come to pass is debatable.
I've heard this idea stated many times, but it just doesn't make sense. If a company bought a technology that was much better than the current technology, why would they bury it? Wouldn't they make more money by producing that technology and selling the product rather than getting rid of it and competing with their competitors with the same old thing? For example, if an oil company really did buy the technology to make carburetor that could make a car get 100mpg, wouldn't they make more money licensing that technology to car companies than what they would lose in oil sales? And dramatically reduce their competitors' profits in the process?
In a world where governments and corporations instill logic and reason, yes ... in our reality, not really.
From a lot of corporations perspective it takes time and very large amount of money to actually make the transition to newer techs.
Newer technology such as this is supposed to be less costly for the consumer and cheaper/easier to produce ... but the main purpose (from the corporations perspective) is NOT to give the consumer the best at the lowest prices.
If anyhting ... I'm not saying all of these inventions never reach the market ... some of them do ... which is rare and despite the fact they are supposed to be better/more efficient and cheaper than older techs ... they are often sold at premium prices which only go down after a substantial amount of time has passed.
Solid State Drives are one such example where new tech could replace the old one completely (and we are still using outdated techs for conventional HDD's by simply improving speed/capacity/power consumption and shrinking existing tech in size).
Intel actually made a new SSD on a 32nm manuf. process and of 256GB size ... and while the price did drop down by about 30% or more (not entirely sure) ... it's still high enough to keep from the consumers getting their hands on it.
The pace at which new generation tech is released is at a snails pace to say the least while you have existing generations undergoing 'revisions' ALL the time and being sold at high prices to begin with.
Recycling old tech essentially.
Plecostomus
Commodore
What happens is industry forms around certain products. For example large petrol engines. You have the casting industry, the milling/machining industry, the final assembly and testing industry, and the fuel industry.
Each one of these groups has invested awesome amounts of time money and labor into this product. Tens of thousands (a light estimate) would be out of work if we "suddenly" went to electric cars... simply because you don't need the massive casting furnaces and people making the tiny milling inserts used to smooth the rough casting. Operators across the industry would be out of work, professionals with 25-30 years experience would lose their positions... The metal industry would suddenly lose a huge customer as would the fuel companies.
There is a massive amount of institutional inertia in place that would need to be overcome. Entire legions of people would need to be retrained and reeducated to build electric motors, new tooling and equipment invested in.
Frankly, the longevity of workers in the auto industry is what is holding us back, we have people who refuse to change simply because they don't want to. From Joe Screwdriver to his boss in the office to the VP of Screwdriving Operations.
Then there is the lobbyist aspect... Lets convince the government that doing the same thing forever is the RIGHT way and anything new and different needs to be hyper-regulated and/or banned.
Lastly, I have worked on project where these vested interests move to kill a project and bury it. Project I was involved in was polymer autobody panels. We developed a polymer product and manufacturing technology that yielded a product that acted just like the metal panels... you could pull dents, repaint, everything. Stuff would crumple and deform like steel.
Project was killed by a higher up because he was in the pocket of the stamping/tool-and-die people and they influenced him to cut our resources and funding until we failed.
Each one of these groups has invested awesome amounts of time money and labor into this product. Tens of thousands (a light estimate) would be out of work if we "suddenly" went to electric cars... simply because you don't need the massive casting furnaces and people making the tiny milling inserts used to smooth the rough casting. Operators across the industry would be out of work, professionals with 25-30 years experience would lose their positions... The metal industry would suddenly lose a huge customer as would the fuel companies.
There is a massive amount of institutional inertia in place that would need to be overcome. Entire legions of people would need to be retrained and reeducated to build electric motors, new tooling and equipment invested in.
Frankly, the longevity of workers in the auto industry is what is holding us back, we have people who refuse to change simply because they don't want to. From Joe Screwdriver to his boss in the office to the VP of Screwdriving Operations.
Then there is the lobbyist aspect... Lets convince the government that doing the same thing forever is the RIGHT way and anything new and different needs to be hyper-regulated and/or banned.
Lastly, I have worked on project where these vested interests move to kill a project and bury it. Project I was involved in was polymer autobody panels. We developed a polymer product and manufacturing technology that yielded a product that acted just like the metal panels... you could pull dents, repaint, everything. Stuff would crumple and deform like steel.
Project was killed by a higher up because he was in the pocket of the stamping/tool-and-die people and they influenced him to cut our resources and funding until we failed.
I've been thinking lately about how battery technology is struggling to keep up with modern technology, so this sounds interesting. Although I'd be a bit apprehensive of having a few kilos of metallic sodium in my home. Imagine if these things develop a fault and short themselves out, that stored energy has got to go somewhere.
Not necessarily.
Perhaps it will continue to be stored within the battery, just unused because as you said they short themselves out essentially becoming as useless as a charged up battery that is never used ... the main difference is that the shorted out ones will have to be repaired or replaced for reuse.
Depends on what type of technological security measures are implemented really.
The issue with present batteries as you eloquently put it is that they are struggling to keep up with modern tech.
Take Lithium batteries in laptops.
They are barely able to hold a good enough charge for a few hours before they run out, especially if the config in question is a mid range solution for example.
They were making revisions to the Lithium batteries in laptops to improve the recharge time drastically ... but I kind of frowned because what good is a fast recharge when the charge in question will die out rather fast on it's own?
Perhaps it will continue to be stored within the battery, just unused because as you said they short themselves out essentially becoming as useless as a charged up battery that is never used ... the main difference is that the shorted out ones will have to be repaired or replaced for reuse.
Depends on what type of technological security measures are implemented really.
The issue with present batteries as you eloquently put it is that they are struggling to keep up with modern tech.
Take Lithium batteries in laptops.
They are barely able to hold a good enough charge for a few hours before they run out, especially if the config in question is a mid range solution for example.
They were making revisions to the Lithium batteries in laptops to improve the recharge time drastically ... but I kind of frowned because what good is a fast recharge when the charge in question will die out rather fast on it's own?
It's a sodium-sulphur battery. Here's the reaction if the ceramic film cracks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkcIdn1d_7Y
It does take time and money to develop new technologies. These companies are constantly working on that, but many of the ideas don't pan out. The reason these ideas aren't brought to market is not because its too competitive with the old tech, it's because it doesn't compete. Newer technology isn't necessarily supposed to be cheaper for the consumer. It might be eventually, but initially it won't be because of the large R&D costs. You're right, the main goal of new technology isn't to give the consumer the best and lowest prices, it is to make more money than the competitors. The best way to do that is to offer something better than the competitors. When a new technology is made available, it comes at a premium because people will pay more for it and because there are large costs to recover.
Your SSD drives is a good example. The new tech could replace the old one, but not for less money. Flash memory is more expensive than platters. A SSD drive can't be made for the same cost as an equivalent-sized platter-based drive. Intel isn't keeping the price of their 256GB SSD drive high so that consumers can't buy it, as you suggest; the price is high because it costs more to make. If they could build it for the same cost as a platter-based drive why wouldn't they sell it for the same cost or slightly more? Everyone in the market for a drive that size would buy it and they would make a killing.
Again, it doesn't make sense for a company to kill a superior technology if they could produce it and out-compete their competitors.
My guess is that the transition is going to be very hard on the poor. Fewer people on the grid = higher costs for the average consumer (plus the likelihood of fewer repairs to a rapidly outdated system). Rich people will be able to make the switch easily. It's the people left behind who will have some trouble.
I wonder how the right-wing will react when economists start calling for solar-power subsidization for every U.S. home. It's really the only way this could get done without huge problems.
I wonder how the right-wing will react when economists start calling for solar-power subsidization for every U.S. home. It's really the only way this could get done without huge problems.
I don't know--I'm pretty sure gasoline can't melt the bottom off a glass test-tube.
Similar threads
