Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to nimnarb,Clitheroekid,AndyPandy,DrFfybes,smokey01, for Donating to support the site

Battery tech

Scientific discovery and discussion
9873210
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1039
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 318 times

Re: Battery tech

#653525

Postby 9873210 » March 14th, 2024, 2:23 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:Most UK people live in homes built before good insulation was considered necessary & mandated by government, that includes most houses built before the 21st century.


Many houses in the UK were built without central heating. Installing central heating was a big and expensive job, yet people found the money. People find the money to remove chimney breasts to gain a few cubic meters of space and more money to install fake chimneys because of government fiat.

Cavity walls were introduced for a reason, and it wasn't so you could put insulation in the cavity. The many houses without cavity walls are in need of serious renovation, or replacement. Government doesn't need to mandate that, but current policy is to prohibit it.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6592
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1004 times

Re: Battery tech

#653633

Postby odysseus2000 » March 14th, 2024, 8:08 pm

9873210 wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:Most UK people live in homes built before good insulation was considered necessary & mandated by government, that includes most houses built before the 21st century.


Many houses in the UK were built without central heating. Installing central heating was a big and expensive job, yet people found the money. People find the money to remove chimney breasts to gain a few cubic meters of space and more money to install fake chimneys because of government fiat.

Cavity walls were introduced for a reason, and it wasn't so you could put insulation in the cavity. The many houses without cavity walls are in need of serious renovation, or replacement. Government doesn't need to mandate that, but current policy is to prohibit it.


Attempts were made in the 1970’s to remove a lot of ‘slum housing” & replace it with high rise blocks of flat that had all modern conveniences.The government ran advertising about lack of space & even used images of Lemmings killing themselves as their population was too big. These were faked in Canada, but shown to uk school children as the reason to save space & build upwards.

Developers made a fortune, in some places they added flammable insulation that eventually lead to a tragedy, but setting aside all those who were killed at Grenfell towers, the quality of life for many high rise flat dwellers was often terrible with lift failures, ambush points for muggers & a whole host of inconveniences & such.

In Manchester many of the flats were abandoned & then rented out to students & even students found troubles & avoided them.

One can certainly argue that these were exceptions & should not detract from the need to modernize the UK housing stock, but on the other hand what we have now works for many & can be operated in a low carbon manor as the cost of both renewable generation & storage continues to fall.

One can argue that the tendency to build on good farm land as encouraged by all political parties while our towns, cities & villages decline is not a good idea & we need more renovations or tear down & replace in all the old population centres, but doing this in ways were the folk who live there, tax payers & such don’t get ripped off & developers make a fortune for shoddy work relies on good, competent & low corruption politicians, but we rarely get any of them.

I am kind of left feeling that muddling through & letting new buyers modernize houses as previous generations leave is as good a way as any.

Science has provided engineers with the knowledge to make any old house much better & comfortable than it was for previous generations & over decades folk will slowly improve the housing stock.

Regards,

hiriskpaul
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4051
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:04 pm
Has thanked: 765 times
Been thanked: 1626 times

Re: Battery tech

#654323

Postby hiriskpaul » March 18th, 2024, 1:40 pm

hiriskpaul wrote:
clissold345 wrote:
Keep an open mind! Battery chemistries can be mixed under certain circumstances. Safety is important to you. What's the best way of improving safety? Fast charging is important to you. So yes if a B2B provides faster charging, it makes sense for you to have one. I hope you find the facebook group useful!

Safest way would be not to charge off the alternator at all! Which might work if I had sufficient capacity. I need to try and size it better, but I reckon on about 50Ah per day, maybe a little less when at anchor or somewhere with no shore power, so 350Ah should last a week. Probably enough and could extend with a small amount of solar.

Alternator charging is very inefficient, but in emergencies I could connect up with a long cable, but switched off most of the time :)

I have just ordered 4 280Ah LiFePO4 cells, a 200Ah BMS and case from Fogstar. I bought B cells for £65 each, so with extra costs of cable, etc the battery should cost less than £400. This is a great price for a 280Ah battery and B cells are fine for my use.

I intend to mostly charge on shore power, so I will experiment with the long connection lead technique for alternator charging. I will need around 10m of cable in any case (5m each red/black) to reach the place I intend to locate the battery, which may well be about right with 6mm cable.

Thanks for bringing up the long cable approach!

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6592
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1004 times

Re: Battery tech

#657188

Postby odysseus2000 » April 1st, 2024, 10:10 am

Catl offer battery with guaranteed 1 million mile life & no degradation during the first 1000 charges, so if a vehicle does 500 miles per charge, it should see no battery degradation for the first half million miles:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Electric- ... 405.0.html

Regards,

GrahamPlatt
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:40 am
Has thanked: 1070 times
Been thanked: 869 times

Re: Battery tech

#664602

Postby GrahamPlatt » May 17th, 2024, 5:17 am

This could be important. Only ever going to be as energy-dense as lead-acid, Discharges passively within a week. But. Would be a perfect fit for solar - just to be used over the course of the next night. >20 years of daily use befoore dropping to 80% initial capacity, cheap materials, non-toxic, recyclable. Trust the Swedes to think of using “essence of wood”.

https://interestingengineering.com/inno ... e-solution

GrahamPlatt
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:40 am
Has thanked: 1070 times
Been thanked: 869 times

Re: Battery tech

#672930

Postby GrahamPlatt » July 5th, 2024, 2:21 pm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131808.htm

"Although there have been previous sodium, solid-state, and anode-free batteries,
no one has been able to successfully combine these three ideas until now"

It’s a bit light on the details - possibly on account of patent pending.
I’m not sure what the true difference between an anode and a “collector” is here.
Nor how compressing powdered aluminium enables sufficient surface contact with the sodium.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6592
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1004 times

Re: Battery tech

#672954

Postby odysseus2000 » July 5th, 2024, 4:30 pm

GrahamPlatt wrote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/07/240703131808.htm

"Although there have been previous sodium, solid-state, and anode-free batteries,
no one has been able to successfully combine these three ideas until now"

It’s a bit light on the details - possibly on account of patent pending.
I’m not sure what the true difference between an anode and a “collector” is here.
Nor how compressing powdered aluminium enables sufficient surface contact with the sodium.


It is rather confusing way of stating what they claim. As I understand it every battery as an anode & a cathode, with the anode being part of the battery contents, sometimes a carbon component, but in this case there is no additional chemical component in the battery as the positive electrical contact has the anode built into it rather than into the battery contents.

It all looks like a very preliminary design. I didn’t see any test results or storage figures suggesting they are at an early stage. The patent filing will be public, so one can look for that to potentially get more information, but as of now it looks a laboratory proof of concept, not a commercial product.

As of now the most rcpxciting battery technology I have seen comes from Sakuu which is a dry print lithium battery that they have test data for & which was reviewed by Munroe:

https://youtu.be/aGW2zayMiu8?si=_bQjbMEVB5AlQz2R

This is a lithium battery, not sodium but looks to have very many practical & manufacturing advantages over all competitor technologies & a life expectancy of over a 1000 charge/discharge & can be licensed now.

Regards,


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest