Tesla researcher is 'excited' about new battery tech developed by the Army

https://electrek.co/2019/05/13/tesla-battery-researcher-new-battery-tech-army/

by laurex • 7 years ago

106 87 7 years ago

electrek.co

jokoon2• 7 years ago

impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg

How does it compare with the best current battery technology?

If it's significant enough that's big news, I'm sure this might trigger some intense attempts of industrial spying.

Also I wonder why it's always the military and public funding making real progress in research, almost never private ventures.

8draco8• 7 years ago

Tesla Model 3 have battery with estimate density of 250 Wh/kg so that would almost double current density

DFHippie• 7 years ago

double current density

Humorous potential for confusion in an article about batteries :-)

i80and2• 7 years ago

Not an expert, but [1] states that current Lion batteries are at 260 Wh/Kg, with 400 Wh/Kg chemistry approaching commercial viability.

[1] https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1803/1803.04317.pdf

lovich• 7 years ago

Also I wonder why it's always the military and public funding making real progress in research, almost never private ventures.

Because it costs money, isn't guaranteed, and can take longer than a quarter which is a combination of aspects that private ventures hate. Private ventures can also easily pair up with universities to have the public pay the bill and then get IP protections over the innovation and sell it themselves

daenz• 7 years ago

Private ventures can also easily pair up with universities to have the public pay the bill and then get IP protections over the innovation and sell it themselves

Can you elaborate more on how that works? Seems like something that should be illegal.

majkinetor• 7 years ago

I'm sure this might trigger some intense attempts of industrial spying.

Nah, you don't know Dr. Kang Xu, he would never sell Americans.

ihm• 7 years ago

I think it’s because the profit motive is only sometimes incidentally aligned with the goal of technological progress while publicly-funded researchers have progress (and often actually bettering the world) as their primary goal.

jokoon2• 7 years ago

only sometimes incidentally

Why?

bluGill• 7 years ago

Private ventures have different motives. Private ventures are generally focused on getting to market: keeping quiet is important because they don't want their competition to know what is coming.

paulirwin• 7 years ago

Note that 460 Wh/kg is the density of the electrode, not the cell as a whole which given the aqueous electrolyte would be less but still higher than existing technologies.

However, the key point is not just the density, but the density combined with the materials used, and (perhaps most importantly) safety.

I think it's worth comparing to LiFePO4 as a baseline. It has the lowest density of common li-ion batteries (110Wh/kg), but it is very safe as it does not have the likelihood of thermal runaway. Other battery types have higher densities, like li-poly and other li-ions, but they can have thermal runaway if damaged or overcharged requiring battery management systems to prevent fire. (With LiFePO4, you also need a BMS, but mainly to prevent permanent damage to the battery to protect your investment, rather than fire.)

From my understanding, if this can be commercially viable (as it should be with the lower material cost), this will achieve high density, low cost, and thermal safety, which puts it in a league of its own.

ksec2• 7 years ago

From my understanding, if this can be commercially viable (as it should be with the lower material cost), this will achieve high density, low cost, and thermal safety, which puts it in a league of its own.

And it would be perfect if we could get cycles beyond the current ~500 range.

I would be happy if we could get one within next 5 years.

nagisa• 7 years ago

The article itself can be found at

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1175-6

boh• 7 years ago

For those who believe governments only serve to stifle innovation, please take heed to this counter example(before the Silicon Valley PR machine recasts the research as a work of its own genius).

ape4• 7 years ago

Not even counting government research, roads and bridges and other infrastructure make innovation possible. Where would Uber, Amazon (deliveries) be without good roads and bridges.

sjwright• 7 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

j7ake• 7 years ago

The entire tech industry is founded upon basic research. If Silicon Valley thinks they built it all themselves they are completely delusional.

SheinhardtWigCo• 7 years ago

Silicon Valley is a place.

Aromasin• 7 years ago

Sometimes I think if the majority of HN had their way we'd be living in a feudal system again, except with right to rule given to Silicon Valley start-up royalty instead of divine-right nobility.

dexen2• 7 years ago

It's a fine sentiment. Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy. Which is to be expected, as navies traditionally were big into crypto.

The military has long history of both doing their own research (logistics & management, and cryptography being good examples), running research institutes with civilian employees (as it seems to be in this case), and contracting out R&D to run-of-the-mill civilian institutions (half of the SV on a good day).

It's worth remembering that the military in typical country is set up with certain similarities to free market economy: it negotiates budget with the "customer" (government), it has several major branches that fiercely compete with each other (typically air force, army, navy; US also rolls with marines as a separate branch), and there are vertical & lateral transfers of employees at times. Lastly, there's always the competing militaris abroad ;-)

Heck, one of common view of the Cold War is that of NATO bankrupting the Soviet block via military arms race.

umvi• 7 years ago

Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy.

But is it ethical to use military-developed innovations?

Diederich2• 7 years ago

Agreed, though with one minor clarification:

Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy.

The US Government funded Tor development; Tor was certainly not 'run' by the Navy or any other government department.

nicoburns• 7 years ago

It's worth remembering that the military in typical country is set up with certain similarities to free market economy

So are other governmental organisations in lot's of cases. Is the military special here?

nathan_long2• 7 years ago

See also: ARPANET, forerunner of the internet.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet-switching network and the first network to implement the TCP/IP protocol suite. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. The ARPANET was initially founded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

"Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner is an entertaining chronicle of its creation.

the_watcher• 7 years ago

Similarly, military research can yield innovations that, while initially designed for military use, turn out to have important and transformative non-military applications.

rubidium• 7 years ago

Many researchers are more interested in the non-military options. But you get better funding when you pitch it for the military.

cronix• 7 years ago

GPS is a pretty good example of that. While it was developed by the US military, civilians world-wide use it every day. I'd call it a transformative technology. Turn by turn directions, self driving cars, drones (not military), cameras, phones, etc.

Swizec• 7 years ago

Governments stifle innovation?

Wasn’t it the government who gave us the internet and the computer too? Early self-driving cars too.

abalone• 7 years ago

yeah fine batteries but what about autonomous vehicles?

surely that breakthrough is the genius of Elon Musk and Silicon Valley free market entrepreneurship not military funded....

oh.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

throwayEngineer• 7 years ago

Given the dead humans caused by the military, the extreme costs of funding, I think you would need a massive invention to offset the costs.

The trillions of dollars spent, could be argued, is better spent in the private sector on innovation.

SilasX• 7 years ago

For those who want to accurately represent what those who disagree with you actually believe, please use parent comment as an example of how not to do it.

scotradamus• 7 years ago

A ton of great innovation comes from Universities and the National Labs. I would argue most innovation comes out of basic research funded by the government. Interestingly, in a lot of ways this research is subsidized R&D for American corporations and startups. Much of what gets funded in basic research is set by lobbyists. It makes sense, not many companies can sink millions or in some cases billions of dollars into R&D that may never have commercial applications. There was a really good book review about this in a Physics Today issue a few years back (I cant currently find it).

DeonPenny• 7 years ago

The US government is one of the biggest investors in innovation

ed_balls2• 7 years ago

opens a possibility to significantly increase the lithium-ion battery energy density while preserving safety due to the aqueous nature of the electrolyte.

Wouldn't that be bad for car's stability?

noir_lord• 7 years ago

Only if there is free space over the liquid.

gonzo41• 7 years ago

You put baffles in the liquid so the sloshing is reduced. Or use a spherical container. There's a fantastic Engineering Connections where Richard Hammond explains essentially the same thing about LNG transport ships.

hobs• 7 years ago

I loved Engineering Connections - his explanation of the free surface effect was so well done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d3gVypww6s

snarfy• 7 years ago

Recharging could work the same as refueling. Pump used,uncharged electrolyte out and pump in fresh charged electrolyte.

et2o• 7 years ago

Brilliant idea!

NeedMoreTea• 7 years ago

Jaguar and Ferrari seem to do OK carting around 15 gallons or so of liquid. :)

Baffles as gonzo mentions, and keep it low. Bonus here is it won't be a diminishing load like petrol.

chrisseaton3• 7 years ago

How do you think cars manage with gas tanks at the moment?

ed_balls2• 7 years ago

Battery packs weight more than 500kg. An order of magnitude more than ICE cars energy storage.

jorblumesea• 7 years ago

It's crazy how much technology comes from government investment, yet people continue to assert that private industry can somehow fill the gaps. With quarterly cycles being what they are, the only one thinking long term is the govt. They're the only ones who engage in fundamental scientific research or even near term research and are responsible for much of the innovation that private industry loves to claim.

germinalphrase• 7 years ago

Marianna Mazzucato did a nice talk at the Long Now Foundation about this exact point.

http://longnow.org/seminars/02014/mar/24/entrepreneurial-sta...

nathan_long2• 7 years ago

Can anyone give context on these statements?

When combined with their previous development of “water-in-salt electrolytes (WiSE)”, they claim that they can achieve an impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg.
Some soldiers have to carry between 15-25 pounds of batteries and this technology could significantly lower that weight

What's the energy density of current batteries and how much lighter would equivalent batteries be using this technology?

while preserving safety due to the aqueous nature of the electrolyte

What does this mean - why could the new battery be safer?

AloeSanitizer• 7 years ago

New battery energy density in this article:

460 Wh/kg

This is from an older article looking at model 3 energy density:

207 Wh/kg

Tesla Model 3 Battery Cell Has World's Highest Energy Density

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bo27ia/tesla_b...

JackFr2• 7 years ago

Gasoline 12,888 Wh/kg

(I don't post this to be annoying contrarian in a discussion of battery tech. The externalities of burning carbon aside, it's just astonishing how effective gasoline is a relatively safe, stable means of transporting energy.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

mont• 7 years ago

Keep in mind that when a general hears that a soldier can loose 10 lbs of batteries, in his mind that means 10 more pounds of bullets.

chrisseaton3• 7 years ago

No that’s not true. Western militaries are all pushing hard to ‘fight light’ these days.

throw201020103• 7 years ago

Some generals would certainly think that. To them, they are thinking of battle rattle as a knapsack problem where soldiers have demonstrated the ability to carry 80+ lbs of weight and 80+ liters of pack size. 10 more lbs of bullets means more fighting power.

Other generals are thinking that going from an 80 lb pack to a 70 lb pack means fewer injuries, so your fighting readiness increases without changing anything else. Fewer injuries means more fighting power.

The bean counter types are also considering that they can ship the same amount of electric energy to the front line with fewer shipments (assuming that they are weight constrained, but they are often volume constrained). This frees up logistics capacity for getting other things to the front lines. This means more fighting power.

No matter which lens you view it through, this thought process is what leads to military leaders salivating at the thought of new technologies. If you want your startup (or academic research team) to make big bucks, then seek out government contracts for small businesses or technology development contracts. These contracts are very favorable to your company, as you almost always get paid for your work even if you don't deliver the promised product. As long as you're willing to accept some stigma from Silicon Valley you probably have a much higher probability of success.

IanCal• 7 years ago

What's the energy density of current batteries and how much lighter would equivalent batteries be using this technology?

Not my area, but the best info I can find around is somewhere in the region of 200-250Wh/kg at the top end for current typical lithium ion batteries. I'm not sure if that's the type they're using.

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.04317.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

chrisseaton3• 7 years ago

That’s a bizarre mix of units...

detritus• 7 years ago

It is an interesting advance (and one far beyond my technical ken) but the main point that stood out for me when this was first posted on HN a few days back is the so far untested longetivity of the system, with it so far only having been tested for 150 dis/charge cycles. This doesn't at all preclude improvement, but the military's needs and budgets don't necessitate very long-life uses, unlike consumer items - especially expensive battery on wheels items like cars.

Here's hoping though!

WhompingWindows• 7 years ago

It may be that the new batteries simply haven't had the time to be thoroughly tested. My great uncle worked on batteries in the 60's and we are still running experiments on them today to examine their life cycle.

bluntfang• 7 years ago

Does anyone know the company that was commissioned to research and/or manufacture this for the Army?

deckar01• 7 years ago

The researchers, led by Chunsheng Wang, R.F. and F.R. Wright Distinguished Chair Professor in UMD's Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry; Kang Xu, ARL Fellow, and Oleg Borodin, ARL scientist, developed the battery into a testable stage...

https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=3445

jimrandomh• 7 years ago

There is a tradition among mainstream press outlets of taking battery-related research, misreading it in a way that makes it sound more impressive than it really is, and publishing breathless articles about how revolutionary it is. This article continues the tradition.

The Electrek article claims that the researchers made a cell with "an impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg". But the Nature paper says that they made a cell with "460 watt-hours per kilogram of total composite electrode". These are not the same; a cell contains other components besides the electrode: the anode, the electrolyte, and the package. The paper doesn't state the overall energy density (at least in the abstract), but it will surely be much lower when other components are counted.

Sutanreyu• 7 years ago

The future is with solid-state batteries.

Tesla researcher is 'excited' about new battery tech developed by the Army

Related Stories