NASA’s incredible new solid-state battery pushes the boundaries of energy storage: ‘This could revolutionize air travel’::“We’re starting to approach this new frontier of battery research."
I never really understood why battery technology was so difficult until a friend put it in perspective for me. The only difference between a battery and a bomb is the rate they release their energy. Now I understand.
This is similarly true to a container of gasoline. The difficult part is we’ve yet to find a battery tech that comes even close to the same energy density. Gasoline has nearly 12000 Wh/kg, compared to the 200-500 mentioned in the article.
Im curious what a regular size lithium car battery would release if you were to burn it
Not just energy density but also how quickly we can refill it.
I read this a bit ago. Hopefully all this tech eventually finds it way into aircraft.
My money “hope” is actually on smaller solid state batteries than can be recharged through the air. Similar to watt up tech and ossia.
With power over air you need less battery storage and work on keeping the battery from dropping.
Also I think best case scenario would be a massive reduction in the amount of planes flying.
High speed rail would be a better solution. Planes across seas and then rail travel on land.
If trains can get within speeds of air travel then we might be getting there.
Alas will be long dead before anything happens
power over air? 🤨
Thanks for sharing. I struggle with feeling such dread about the climate crisis. It’s very helpful to see posts with positive stories like this. Such exciting possibilities for reducing fossil fuel usage and still having regular air travel.
There seems to be yet another new battery technology that will save the world every day. And yet, they never become available to the public. I really wish we could ban them from announcing until they can mass produce the battery and sell it to the public. It is almost as bad as all those articles about the “flying car that will be available next year” articles that have been appearing in magazines since the 1950’s.
Powering a plane with a battery sounds like a bad idea. Almost worst than EVs.
Oh yeah, way worse than filling planes with thousands of gallons of extremely flammable jet fuel
Jet fuel is one of the few remaining applications of leaded fuel.
No, it’s not. Jet fuel does not have lead
Small propeller planes use leaded fuel
Actually , one of the proposed solutions to leaded fuel in propeller planes was to see if you could modify the engines to use jet fuel
Additionally, there are several unleaded alternatives in the works, one of which (GAMI 100UL) has been approved by the FAA for use in all avgas planes with the purchase of a Supplementary Type Certificate.
Some light aircraft, such as the Diamond DA40NG use automotive diesel engines adapted for aviation that burn jet fuel instead of avgas. The diesel version of the Diamond is about 40% more efficient than the avgas version, and also flies considerably faster.
Why do you think EVs are a bad idea?
I’m going to guess “all the precious metals in manufacturing of the EV are so much worse than my gas cars!” Nonsense that the oil industry has been shilling online with bots for years to slow adoption of EVs among specific demographics.
Even though this myth has been debunked a hundred times, by folks like MIT, and in Reuters they showed if you live in an area that’s exclusively renewable power like I do, then I actually broke even 4ish years ago; within 3 months of owning my EV. Source: Reuters article, norway vs us ev break even point
But hey, I’m sure that propaganda of “just buy a gas car! It’s better for the environment” will make sense eventually once they figure out how to ignore more science.
deleted by creator
I wonder what they thought that Prius’s battery was made out of. Must have been gas cells or something. Couldn’t be one of those pesky rare earth batteries.
Depending on when this “study” was done the Prius probably had a NiMH battery though.
They are worse on the environment then gasoline cars due to the rare earth materials needed to make a EV and it is harsher on the environment when it comes to dispose a EV once they reach end of life.
And all a EV car does is demand energy from a power plant which are either using coal or natural gas for the most part. The only “green” efficient power plant option out there is nuclear but no one wants to go nuclear.
If your concered about the climate and want to take that into account when getting a new vehicle. I always tell people to buy a used vehicle since it already exists and by driving a used car, your keeping it from being in a land fill and you save money buying used. Or the other best option is to get a bike or use public transportation.
And I do not see any difference with battery powered planes. I see more planes crashing due to using a new technology. Planes have come a long way and only gotten safer with years of engineering but by changing the power source to a battery over gasoline, unexpexted problems will like arise. Essentially do not fix what is not broken.
They are worse on the environment then gasoline cars due to the rare earth materials needed to make a EV and it is harsher on the environment when it comes to dispose a EV once they reach end of life.
While it’s typically true that making an EV car has more environmental impact than an ICE vehicle, this is more than compensated for by the emissions while driving, says also the EPA. Additionally, new LFP batteries are taking over the EV market and do not require rare earth minerals.
And all a EV car does is demand energy from a power plant which are either using coal or natural gas for the most part. The only “green” efficient power plant option out there is nuclear but no one wants to go nuclear.
Yes, let’s just ignore hydro, solar and wind power altogether. Renewable sources are currently almost 25% of US electricity production (more than coal) and growing rapidly. Also, even if you charge the EV with energy from a coal power plant, it’s still better than a gasoline car. The reason is efficiency. Power plants are more efficient at getting energy from fuel than a car engine, and electrical engines are more efficiently converting energy to motion.
If your concered about the climate and want to take that into account when getting a new vehicle. I always tell people to buy a used vehicle since it already exists and by driving a used car
This is not bad advice, but even better would be to buy a used EV.
And I mean; can we just not ignore hydro at all and point out that if you own an EV in most of Canada you have broken even after your first year of driving then? Because we don’t get a choice to use “clean beautiful coal” like the trump folks want! We only get that dirty hydro!
So. Yeah. I’m happy with my EV. I bought it because gas prices are completely outrageous in British Columbia (2 a litre or 8 a gallon for the U.S. folks) I honestly didn’t think I was helping the environment so much as helping my wallet. Turns out it does both. Cool with me.
Important to note that it’s not 25% spread evenly across the country. Oregon and Washington get almost all their power through hydroelectric and wind power.
Do you have a source for thinking that over the lifespan of the vehicle, that an EV is worse for the environment than a gasoline powered vehicle? Because I have multiple studies referenced in this article from the EPA stating the exact opposite.
The advantage of using an electric powertrain over any other is that the energy can be produced by any source of energy. Yes, right now, a lot of that’s coming from coal and natural gas, but even then, those power plants are WAY more efficient than the gas engines in cars and produce FAR less greenhouse gases source. Also, as countries transition from coal and gas to solar, wind, geothermal, and most critically and hopefully nuclear, the way the energy makes it from the earth to our cars can remain the same: the power grid.
Also, if everyone buys used cars, then that’ll solve the problem? Where do you think used cars come from? You think we should just keep making ICE vehicles and burning shit when we have plenty of new technologies which are being developed at breakneck pace that could actually make a huge difference in reducing emissions?
I do not have a souce that I can just copy and paste. However if I recall my source on this come from Patrick Moore who was a founder of Greenpeace or Alex Epstein. They both publish some great books on the subject of climate change.
I don’t give a shit what the founder of Greenpeace or someone who has published books thinks. I care about scientific studies. I’ll be here to review them if/when you care to actually contribute to this conversation with verifiable facts, rather than just things you remember.
Alrighty then, nice talking to you to? Books are a very reliabe source and their books have lots of scientific facts. Check them out sometime, espeically Patrick Moore’s literature.
In general, sure, books can be great. When it comes to nonfiction, they need to be based on repeatable science (AKA studies). I don’t think it’s a huge ask to bring some facts to a conversation about science.
Patrick Moore denies climate change so he has zero credibility. Alex Epstein is a philosophy and computer science major. Neither of those people have credibility in the topic. I would suggest you find some others who have at least an inkling of credibility.
Patrick Moore has degrees and is well educated on the subject. Patrick Moore been to the arctic and to these places that claim to be suffering from climate change.
Alex Epstein is well educated on this climate stuff. He did not go to school for it but higher education is not required to understand this climate change stuff. Anyone can be self taught these days on many subjects and fields.
Just read the books when you get a chance, until them I not interested in this one-sided debate were everything needs to be from an “official” source. I been down this road before where I read peoples sources and shared mine and I am always wrong because you got to trust the science and if some questions it like me, I become labelled as a heretic to the climate change movement.
I get it though, you been told this stuff your whole life and how to always trust “official” sources. That is how many of us were raised. It is not your fault but man, the truth will set you free. I used to be worried that by the time I become adult or be in my middle years, I would inherit a earth that is uninhabitable. The amount of anxiety and depression this puts on one person is awful. However the world will be around just like it is today for a very long time. I can promise you that.
There is no trust required in science. That’s the whole point of a study in that it lays out the methods used so others can replicate the methods to see if they arrive at the same conclusion.
Shocking (not really) that you’re willing to listen to these two authors who aren’t doing studies in this field and by your own admission, one of which just “been to the arctic,” as if that makes them credible.
Nobody’s calling you a heretic here; we’re encouraging you to provide peer-reviewed studies that refute the claims we’re making which are backed up by peer-reviewed studies. It’s an apples to apples conversation that you’re trying to force oranges into.
Also, I was raised a Christian and learned to see through the bullshit being fed to me because I learned to read studies and understand they’re the only way to know what’s actually true. We can only build upon testable, repeatable science.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the earth will be around just like it is for a long time. We’re seeing climate changes come along A LOT sooner than predicted even just a decade ago. This is no time to be a conservative when it comes to the climate.
The same Patrick Moore who thinks that it’s okay to drink weed killer? Leaving aside his insane stances on climate change, the guy is obviously a crackpot and it’s wild that he is taken seriously by anyone.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/QWM_PgnoAtA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
Yeah! Thank goodness for that magical gas appearance! And there’s never any rare earth metals used in those pesky computers on cars these days! Nobody has touch screens or anything! It’s all switches and dials like we used to have in the 70s!
Right? ….right?
All of that is wrong except the bike or public transportation:
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
Lithium is not rare and is largely mined in areas with no life at all. The US gets most of its lithium from the Atacama Desert in spots where there has never been recorded rain. Cobalt is more rare but that is being phased out in newer batteries.
As for emissions, an EV is better over its lifespan even if it is charging up from 100% coal energy. The breakeven point for that is about 85k miles. With your typical energy mix, it is closer to 20-30k. Even buying a used car does not win when it comes to emissions over its use unless you are planning on driving it less than 85km.
For electric planes, they are already starting to do smaller ones with a short range. Solid state batteries will allow for much larger ones.
Nuclear is not the most green energy source. It is significantly better than fossil fuels but it is still pretty far behind both solar and wind with energy storage.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/6RhtiPefVzM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Did you read the article? Solid state batteries are much safer than lithium ion batteries when damaged, so the risk of fire is quite different.
The only other reason it’s a “bad idea” is energy density, and the article is reporting advancements there. Really, just read the article next time.
Of course they didn’t. They can’t even be bothered to provide links to research that backs up the claims they’re making in this thread.
