Liquid metal batteries - They look very promising and due out next year - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:47:21 am
content: Anyone know much about this MIT professor’s liquid metal battery design?https://youtu.be/pDxegcZqx_8

author: nsrmagazin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 07:13:15 am
content: This is a chemical question, not much about electronics in it. The only liquid metal I know is mercury. Theoretically everything is possible, the question how big the efficiency will be. A lot of professors tend to stand in front of the public and lie.....

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 09:12:02 am
content: Quote from: nsrmagazin on January 27, 2019, 07:13:15 amAny metal is liquid at the right temperature.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 10:54:35 am
content: Interesting technology, I hope it works out for them.Great presentation style, clearly a very smart chap.

author: nsrmagazin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 11:01:00 am
content: The definition of liquid metal is "mercury". The rest have a standard solid state and do not classify as liquid metals.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 11:38:26 am
content: Quote from: nsrmagazin on January 27, 2019, 11:01:00 amErr, the definition of liquid metal is any metal above its melting point.I think I remember thermally insulated Liquid Sodium batteries being touted for use in 'future' electric vehicles at one time. That must have been back in the '70s or '80s.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 02:31:11 pm
content: Gallium has a melting point of 29.76C, it's used in some medical thermometers because it is non toxic. Ceasium melting point 29.5C, Rubidium melting point 39.3C etc

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 02:58:45 pm
content: Gallium is used in some thermometers for a calibration point. On melting the temperature will take a short break at 29.76 C and this is used to check the usually NTC or platinum thermometer.If the temperature is not too high it is not a problem keeping a large battery hot. It adds to the costs of operation, but this gets less with large scale.AFAIK the liquid sodium-sulfur batteries are still candidates and used for grid storage. However they were never really practical in a car.It looks interesting and promising. Still the 80 Ah cells look like a little too small. With large scale the temperature control would likely need moving parts, like fans or pumps to move heat out and get the control - but this is not too bad: large transformers on the grid use active cooling too.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 03:10:21 pm
content: As I wrote in the other thread there are a few things in the video that don't really add up (and I don't like the unnecessary bashing of alternatives). Grid storage systems using these kind of batteries are already available. Their cost however seem to be on par with Li-ion. What the professor in the video fails to say is that these kind of batteries need massive amounts of cheap materials which makes them expensive again. The grid storage solutions using NAS batteries weigh tens of (metric) tonnes. I've seen numbers quoted up to 82 tonnes. All in all the argument of using cheap materials results in a cheap battery just isn't true. Also the total costs need to be considered and compared to hydrogen or bio-fuel batteries still seem to be expensive to use for grid energy storage. The costs are not just in purchasing the batteries but also in replacing the batteries when they are worn.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 04:04:04 pm
content: I doubt a (liquid) sodium air battery has low energy density. Wouldn't want one in a car though for obvious reasons.Sodium, zinc and aluminium are probably the only materials useful for grid scale energy storage in the hour range to prevent fossil fuel fallback during night time with huge scale PV (though still no use for a Dunkelflaute). If a liquid electrode helps, then sodium has the advantage for the low melting temperature.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 04:22:48 pm
content: I'm honestly more interesting in solid state batteries. Hopefully we're finally done with disastrous leaks.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 04:23:51 pm
content: Did any of you watch the video? This is about batteries which could be used for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other energy stoarage applications. The folks at MIT have been working on this for yearrs and should have something in 2020.You folks are are all interested in renewable, aren’t you?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 04:30:24 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on January 27, 2019, 04:23:51 pmSolid state batteries are also being sampled right now.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 05:11:53 pm
content: That's a really good presentation, thanks for sharing.Quote from: nctnico on January 27, 2019, 03:10:21 pmYou are confusing the devices shown in the video withNaS batteries, which were invented 50 years ago.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 01:58:49 am
content: You folks might want to watch the video before posting comments. They are on target to have something next year. If what the professor is saying in the video is correct this is going to provide the energy storage renewables are looking for. And the best thing, is the cost. Very affordable.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 11:47:57 am
content: Who else feels like saying loudly,,When i can go on your webstore and order 10 liquid metal batteries then we will talk, not before.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 12:18:54 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on January 28, 2019, 11:47:57 amFriend isn’t that what this website and form is all about? Discussing electronics, the design of electronic circuits, and future products? Only point in discussing a finished is product is doing a tear down. But let’s see if the professor gets a product before ripping it apart. He is a chemist, and if you learned anything about chemistry and half-cell potentials in freshman chemistry you would quickly realize this guy is on to something that’s far more realistic than free energy.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 12:26:37 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 28, 2019, 10:26:13 amGood reply, you bring up some interesting points which is the purpose of the post. I think he mentioned they would have something in 2020 which is next year.That;s less than one year but not more than two years from now. It would be interesting to see if Gates and others will give him money if he needs it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 12:28:07 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 28, 2019, 10:26:13 amI agree with your last paragraph. This is what I noticed as well.In addition to your static state analysis of heat loss, there will also be additional heat generated when the batteries are charged and discharged. This will need to be taken away so there has to be a thermal management system. Operation at 600 deg. C rules out many materials. A cell which works doesn't mean the technology is ready to make battery packs with them.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 01:03:41 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 28, 2019, 10:26:13 amAt25%75% round trip efficiencies you've got lots of spare heat energy, 333W per kW is a lot of heat and once it's up to the proper operating T you only need to keep it there (to compensate insulation losses). I would not be surprised if in reality at the end it needed some sort of refrigeration.Edit: 75% not 25%

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 06:33:15 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 28, 2019, 06:08:16 pmCan we set politics, military, and Sadoway/MIT profits aside for the Monet and focus on the science and specificly the chemistry. In the beginning of the video he discusses the abundance’s of the elements and the half cell potentials of the different metals. I think he does an excellent job of explaining the chemistry and limitations. Do you see any issues with his chemistry and half cell potentials?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 07:44:44 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 28, 2019, 06:08:16 pmHe (sort of) explains it in the video IIRC, 3 kWh is a lot of heat, for every 10 kWh.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 08:01:23 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 28, 2019, 07:44:44 pmI would have to agree. What makes sense is the way he’s looking at it. Abudnecy of elements, half cell potentials and the electrolyte.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 08:06:55 pm
content: Heat is generated on charge and discharge. Self discharge isn't very important as the cycle time only needs to be one day, not weeks or months.Tim

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 10:36:00 pm
content: My comments on the video :a lot of exageration. But it's still a valid potential tech for the future grid storage. Not sure if it would be economically useful, tho.Don't forget there's a lot of thermal management involved.@4:33 : "CdTe solar cells won't scale" Exagerated. You need approx. 50x more Si. than Te to make the same amount of solar output in a PV cell. So the cost of a trace material like Te is not that critical. As with Lithium mining, supply slowly scales with demand.@5:55 "platinum is OK for the jewlery market, but not for widespread use in automobiles" : LOL. That's completely wrong. Nearly half of the Pt mined today is eaten up by the automobile industry, to make catalythic converters ! His point on cost of FCEV still is valid, but exagerated.@26:12 : less cells wiring complexity : yeah, Lithium exists in bigger cell sizes, achieving the same.@2:58 : the graph is probably not up to date on Liion storage.he claims about "5k kWh" -> 5MWh, which is obviously far too low!That's obviously wrong by a few orders of magnitudes, as the tesla grid storage in Australia has 130MWh installed, and there are others, growing very fast.The total number seems to be in the 2-3 GWh installed now, according to :https://www.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/storage-forecast-2016yir.pngwhich seems plausible, considering that the largest 10 grid storage batteries in operation total 1.146 GWh aggording to :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_storage_power_station#Largest_grid_batteriesPumped hydro is ~130 GWh, which should be much closer to the "100M" mark on his graph.So storage batteries for grid buffering, mostly Lithium based, are already at about 2% of pumped hydro, and growing fast. In a few years this will become significant.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 11:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on January 28, 2019, 10:36:00 pmYou make some valid points but Te in CeTe is as nearly as rare a gold. Pt is less abundant than gold. Any idea how much Pt is in a car vs jewelry? Do you have any idea how much Pt has ever been minded? It's a lot less than gold.His point is was we have a finite quantity of each element. And as we mine for more there is less to mine and it becomes more rare. It's silly to make something that's going to require a lot of Te, Rh, Ir, or Pt when there is very much in the first place. That's why Na, Mg, Fe and Al are good choices. We have a lot of it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 11:46:18 pm
content: For once I agree with f4eru.Without taking the quantities into account using 'cheap materials' is a totally meaningless claim. The specific energy (energy stored per kg) of the sodium-sulfur battery is more than twice of that of a Li-ion battery. That (roughly) means that a sodium-sulfur battery needs mining, transporting and processing twice the amount of materials.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 12:06:07 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 28, 2019, 11:46:18 pmThat's the energy cost, but what about financial? Na and S is very easy to come by.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 01:40:01 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on January 28, 2019, 12:18:54 pmChemists have cried wolf too many times regarding new battery tech.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 01:51:18 am
content: Generally sound points, but he gets lost in his evaluation.No cracking or other disintegration of cells since they are liquid? Really? But the charge cycle life data does look really good.As others have said, rarity of materials is only important as applied to consumption. Pt is quite rare, but widely used. In tiny quantities. Same thing with gold. When the magic properties are useful they should be used.The video also does not make clear some points. How is start up accomplished. He touts the totally inert nature of the cooled batteries, and blithely points out that if some cells haven't solidified they consume the current and spread heat to the remainder. Sounds like a pending balance issue to me. He admits that lower temperature would be better and says they are researching lower temperature alloy combinations, but also says they have product ready for imminent release.Just like any other salesman, hold on to your wallet until you know what is really for sale.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 02:06:42 am
content: Quote from: Psi on January 29, 2019, 01:40:01 amBut now where near as many times as computer hardware and software promotors or Wall Street investors.And just to be fair the professor's a materials chemistry professor at MIT. This isn't some uneducated guy tinkering in his garage lab with minimal resources. Give the guy some credit, as his work on this has been punished and peer reviewed. Bill Gates doesn't give money away to every crackpot, Gates sees something that we aren't.We don't know if what he's working on will work or not, too early to tell. It's a work in progress. Sure he's hopeful it will work; I think we all get that. But hasn't he been working on this for close to 10 years? Sure seems he and his students have not run into an issue they haven't been able to solve?I have thought? Once this battery is charged, can't it be disassembled, transported to another location, and fired up again to produce electricity? He didn't say this, but I thought he said once the metals solidify it no longer produces electricity?

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 06:21:23 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 29, 2019, 01:51:18 amThe case is made of steel, or stainless steel, so it doesn't melt.The issues to solve are probably more those of amalgaming, contamination, and secondary unwanted reactions among all the materials present.Also, good efficiency seems tough to achieveBut still, those batteries are promising.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 09:27:20 am
content: Quote from: f4eru on January 29, 2019, 06:21:23 amThere has to be some sort of insulation between the case and the contents because steel is a conductor.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 10:40:30 am
content: The blue-ish/gray-ish thing is an insulator too. And steel isn't a good conductor has lots of resistivity that adds to the i2r losses.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 11:11:19 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 29, 2019, 10:40:30 amMaybe but there is a lot of steel in the outer casing so the total resistance shouldn't be that high.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 11:55:31 am
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 29, 2019, 11:16:00 amI thought it was a container with insulator walls like this (screenshot from the vidjeo):I was "seeing" it like this in your drawing:Quote from: nctnico on January 29, 2019, 11:11:19 amWell yes that helps, but its resistivity is 10x higher than copper.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 12:28:01 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 29, 2019, 06:42:33 amSulfur is incredibly cheap; that might be the price per ton(ne).Check the refs. A lot of those look to be reagent prices, which bear no connection to reality.Carbon might be that expensive if very pure (possibly... nuclear grade graphite?), but metallurgical grades (such as coke) are in the same bracket as iron.Similarly, sodium in large quantity is limited by the same economics as aluminum, magnesium and such: it is metallic energy. I imagine the bulk price remains higher than those, due to smaller production quantities and more hazards to production and transportation.Funny thing about arsenic, there's a tremendous amount of it available in various areas; supply greatly exceeds demand. For obvious reasons. It should give higher voltage in a battery -- but I suspect the cost of using it safely, greatly surpasses its usefulness in the end.Quote from: f4eru on January 29, 2019, 06:21:23 amMg has absolutely no effect on Fe. In fact, the only connections I know of between the two are both in foundry work:1. steel containers are used to handle molten magnesium (exactly because it doesn't corrode iron).2. small additions of magnesium, to cast iron, encourages nodular instead of flaky graphite crystals, making ductile instead of gray iron. (Graphite has essentially no tensile strength, so flaky graphite crystals embedded in the iron matrix basically act as stress raisers -- myriad microscopic cracks. Gray iron has no ductility, malleability, and poor tensile strength. Ductile iron, as the name suggests, improves all of these properties. Malleable iron, is gray that's been heat treated, producing a similar morphology at the expense of several days' soak at orange-hot temperature.)What I don't know about, is antimony's effect on steel. Does it passivate? Could stress corrosion cracking be a problem?The most important I think, as hinted in the talk, is the insulator. Most ceramics have permeability for various ions, at elevated temperature. Beta Al2O3 for example is used as the sodium ion-bearing electrolyte in NaS batteries. ZrO2 has oxygen ion mobility, hence its application as a combustion sensor in vehicles ("O2 sensor", but there's no O2 in the exhaust stream of course..). I don't know offhand what they'd be looking at. It also needs to have close thermal expansion to the metals it's swaged into.The terminals could very well end up a dominant part of the cost, needing smaller amounts of much more expensive materials.Tim

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 12:59:29 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 29, 2019, 12:29:03 pmLOL, Here's another drawing with insulator walls (in blue/gray-ish):https://phys.org/news/2016-01-battery-molten-metals-low-cost-long-lasting.html

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 05:32:26 pm
content: The purification and value of platinum and other rare earth metals.Early Intel processors have around $50 of gold in them.https://youtu.be/Fg2WzCzKpYUhttps://youtu.be/v5GPWJPLcHghttps://youtu.be/7Tg3bmPTeg4https://youtu.be/W3bkIkIKKEs

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 10:53:32 pm
content: Cost per kilogram is one metric for battery materials, but for the primary reactants it seems that cost per mole would be more pertinent. The point is how many electrons per dollar are contributed, not how many per kilogram. I put together a short table of the top performers from this point of view. It is sorted by the cost/mole metric and clearly shows differences from a cost per kilogram metric.Cost data is from the following source where available.https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/Data is not available on that site for many elements because they are not sold at the commodity level in elemental form. For those I used the Wikipedia article mentioned above. There is still some real concern about comparing comparable numbers. At the usgs site I picked the bulk grade pure element price. From the Wikipedia article I just picked the mid range price reported. In general this seems good enough to look at trends, but sure would require more diligence before doing any real work based on this. At least this is closer to the economic cost of the elements than their relative abundance.This little bit of research had an interesting sidelight. A one time neighbor back in the 1980-1990 time period owned and operated the only remaining Tungsten mine in the US. Was getting killed by Chinese competition. The USGS site confirmed that there are no remaining US Tungsten mines.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 11:54:35 pm
content: I'm surprised the price of sodium is really half of the price of silver, as said it would be cumbersome to handle safely, but even so..The current price per kg is interesting but the price could change a lot with increasing demand.EDIT:OnAlibabait is listed for $700-$4500 per metric ton, i.e. $0.7 - $4 /kg. Not sure how accurate those Alibaba prices are either, but I suspect the Wikipedia price must be for small quantities of lab grade, very pure, sodium?This website says 21000 RMB/ton which is about $3/kg:http://original.metal.com/metals/productinfo/201102250465Here is another website that says about $0.33 to $0.44 per kg for metallic sodium:Quotehttps://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/11.html

author: chickenHeadKnob
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:45:17 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 29, 2019, 10:53:32 pmInteresting Table. Yes sulphur is so cheap Alberta Bitumen (tar) sands producers can't give that shit away. Note the second picture in the article of the sulphur pyramid.https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/how-sulphur-is-quietly-posing-one-of-the-most-immediate-threats-to-canadas-oilsands-industryAnother important element missing from your table is Vanadium. Vanadium flow batteries are a thing, and while Vanadium prices recently have spiked there is potential to extract large quantities from the bitumen sands where it is also a by-product.http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/shell-canada-delves-into-vanadium-flow-battery-technology/article/519715https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/vanadium-shell-oilsands-renewables-1.4608208

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 02:57:22 pm
content: :Sodium and Vanadium illustrate the difficulty (or idiocy) of looking at elemental costs. These items just aren't produced and shipped as commodities in elemental form. The prices you find are for salts or oxides. Obviously Sodium Chloride is dirt cheap, as are other forms. An industrial scale user of sodium would set up the refinery on site and include that as cost of manufacture. Maybe over time a market would develop, but sodium is nasty to handle so shipping and storage costs might prevent that from happening.Vanadium is widely sold in the form of an oxide, and in it's current common use as an alloying element for steel is apparently dumped in the crucible in that form. As uses for the raw metal develop that market might also exist.It is interesting looking at the USGS page for other reasons. The scale of these markets is remarkable. As I recall US consumption of platinum was 220 tons. Also the mishmash of units. Pounds. Kilograms. Flasks. Short tons. Tonnes. On and on.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 03:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 30, 2019, 02:57:22 pmYes. Successful chemical industries find ways to use all the byproducts so it's hard to get an accurate cost estimate. If you were to produce sodium from NaCl you would e.g. have to add the cost of dissociation and subtract the profits from selling the chlorine gas (or you would use the chlorine as a reagent in some other process). There are many different raw materials and processes that you could get metallic sodium from which would yield different byproducts that could be used to produce a number of other chemicals. The industries using it probably won't divulge what it costs them either for business reasons. I.e. it would be very hard to figure out the real cost. But I'm pretty certain that metallic sodium will be very cheap.This website even says it's the cheapest of all metals:Quotehttps://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/11.html

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 07:20:29 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 30, 2019, 03:24:01 pmWell if you want to go that direction, hydrogen is technically a metal and by volume is by far the cheapest. Having a low density may or may not be the proper pricing metric.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 08:33:28 pm
content: Brain didn't register the on "volume part"! Hydrogen would be cheaper in gas phase at least.I was just saying sodium is cheap, and as the guy said, battery tech based on it will likely scale well because both Na and S is abundant here on earth.Found attached graphs fromiea, shows share of storage technologies except pumped hydro (which is about 10x the others combined). But new battery installations mainly use lithium-ion technology.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 08:44:43 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 30, 2019, 07:20:29 pmNot what I learned in my freshman chemistry class. "Hydrogen is anonmetaland is placed above group in the periodic table because it has ns1 electron configuration like the alkali metals. However, it varies greatly from the alkali metals as it forms cations (H+) more reluctantly than the other alkali metals"

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 08:50:36 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 30, 2019, 08:33:28 pmIsn't the reason hydrogen gas is so inexpensive is because it is essentially a waste product of crude oil production? Aren't the fires at the smokestacks at refineries burning off excess methane and hydrogen gases?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:25:12 pm
content: Yes most (>95%) hydrogen produced today is from fossil fuels but through a process called natural gas reforming:https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/fcto_hydrogen_production_fs.pdfNot sure how cheap it is, from what I can tell it cost about $10/kg to refuel fuel cell EVs in California. The actual production costs are probably lower though.Hydrogen is normally nonmetalic, but at extreme pressures it's theorised it can exist in a liquid metal phase, inside agas gigantsfor example.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:41:25 pm
content: There may be some waste hydrogen in the flames, but usually hydrogen is produced on purpose and it's not that cheap as it takes quite some energy.Producing hydrogen per electrolysis is a possible way to store energy from excess electricity. However it's not directly competing with batteries - it's more for the longer time scale.The platinum catalyst in the fuel cell is not that bad - it's expensive material, but only small quantities and the material is not lost, but one can get it back after use.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:41:33 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 30, 2019, 09:25:12 pmIn the comments in the "Truth About Hydrogen Cars" a hydrogen car owner says it costs him about the same dollar amount to fill the car with hydrogen as it would with gasoline. His other complaint was how long it takes to fill his car, 20 minutes.There are lots of theories out there which is why we have science. At this time is it fair to say hydrogen is a non-metal but has been theorized to be a metal under extreme conditions?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on January 30, 2019, 09:41:33 pmI would say it's likely true, but I don't think it has ever been confirmed experimentally.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:53:14 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 30, 2019, 09:47:42 pmThat's why we call it a theory. Might be true; but then again might not or we might find something else unexpected.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 10:32:49 pm
content: I will stand corrected on Hydrogen.The point is that Sodium's position as the cheapest metal by volume is as much due to it's relatively low density as it is due to it's low cost. Aluminum competes well there also, while Iron and Lead (other cheap metals) do poorly.Or really the point is that these simple evaluations (cost of element per unit, relative abundance and so on) are not terrible as indicators of where to look, but will often require modification, sometimes significant as the whole picture and the details are examined.A recurring mantra of process controllers, particularly for fuzzy and/or poorly understood processes like personnel management is "Be careful what you measure, because you will get it." Whether it is what you want or not.A classic example is an attempt to measure clerical staff productivity by reams of paper consumed. Seems to make sense at first glance since there should be some sort of connection between the work done and paper used. But it leads to all sorts of undesired behaviors like inventing forms for everything and discarding any piece of paper that isn't perfect.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 05:35:10 am
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 31, 2019, 04:56:38 amExcellent question, I have no idea. I stumbled across Sadoway's presentation about a week ago. I had never heard of him or liquid metal batteries. If you've taken a chemistry class and learned about half cells everything Sadoway is saying makes perfect sense. (But it's only a theory.) Now it's like Sadoway is some backyard home schooled chemist, he's not. He's a professor of chemistry at MIT and has published a number of papers in prestige peer review publications. Like any researcher it sounds like his has had successes and failures and he and his students figure out what works and what doesn't. It's not easy. But it sure sounds like his team of students have working prototypes.If this were easy, someone else would have figured this out at some point in the last 200 years. From what he's been saying it sounds like they will have something next year. This is an experiment in progress, we well see.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2019, 10:12:49 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on January 30, 2019, 09:53:14 pmYes, but it's not black and white either. For example, I am very confident that if if I throw a rock a few meters on the moon (i.e. in a vacuum) it will approximately follow a parabolic path, even though I never have tried doing that. But that is what established theory predicts. So basically we can have more confidence in what an established and well tested theory predicts.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2019, 11:10:58 pm
content: Ackshually:A guess, an assertion, a suspicion -- a colloquial "theory" without proof -- is anhypothesis.A proven hypothesis, is a theory.In mathematics, a theory is an absolute, a necessity, given the premises. A theory exists within a set of postulates. If you change the postulates you're operating under, the theories under that system also change. (The most famous case, historically, being Euclid's five geometric postulates, the last one (parallel lines postulate) of which is the least justified, and which was later developed into noneuclidian geometry where different theorems -- those relating to this postulate -- apply.)In experimental science, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. We do things a bit more carefully. All knowledge is understood to have an uncertainty attached to it.Any experimental number that is simply given, with no error, is as useless as the bits it's made of.Which you'll notice, occurs very often, in articles about science, in discussion, even here, even by such people as myself.Which should tell you something about the worth of those numbers you see!Suffice it to say, very confident bits of scientific theory, are as good as mathematical theory for practical purposes. A confidence level with a one-in-a-trillion error is something you'll very likely to never see a failure of, for any person on the face of the planet, within their lifetimes. That's something you can very confidently stake your life on!And that's why Australians don't actually wear seatbelts on a day-to-day basis.Tim

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 12:17:58 am
content: Quote from: apis on February 02, 2019, 10:12:49 pmYes and no. Wouldn't the trajectory of the rock all depend on your frame of reference. If observed by someone standing on the moon I would agree. But if observed by someone on Earth, or Sun the trajectory would be that of a complex spiral.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 06:23:01 pm
content: In this case the standard model predicts that there is a metallic phase of hydrogen which could exist inside of Jupiter. That means more than if the prediction was based on string theory (it should really be called string hypothesis then, shouldn't it). So, it's not black and white; just because we haven't seen metallic hydrogen in a lab, it's still more likely that it exists than it does not I would say. (Although I really have no idea what the confidence level for it to exist would be).

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 07:00:36 pm
content: Quote from: apis on February 04, 2019, 06:23:01 pmThis is what's great about this forum is we learn from each other. I for one needed a review on the difference between a hypothesis, theory and law in terms of science.I agree hydrogen metal and string theory should be called a hypothesis at this time. I have no idea on the confidence level but string theory sounds a bit crazy. But then who would have thought the electron entanglement experiment would have "worked". Or that quantum computers would be possible?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 07:43:22 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on February 04, 2019, 07:00:36 pmString theory can't be tested at the moment so it should be put in the hypothesis category.Quantum entanglement and quantum computers are predicted by quantum physics (very solid and thoroughly tested theory) and thus were expected to be true by most physicists. If you can make a practically useful quantum computer is still an open question though.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 08:51:10 pm
content: Quote from: apis on February 04, 2019, 07:43:22 pmWould it be fair to say quantum computers are sill in that early theory (as in they work) and hypothesis phase?If you are interested you can write and run programs on one of IBM's quantum computers.One has to love IBM's bullshit marketing on quantum computers."IBM Q is an industry first initiative to build universal quantum computers for business and science. "What is an industry first initiative? I think quantum computers are just a few years away just like self driving cars have been for the past 50 years.https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/

author: bazza
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2019, 09:30:08 am
content: Bill Gates. Grid thief. GMO profiteer. Enviro-vandal. Vaccine vandal. Population-reducer (less-polite term: murderer)Chevron. Enviro-vandal.+A professor who talks grid, grid, grid and downplays off-grid.= your grid slavery.Do not hold your breath.Batteries....the ones we have NOW...and having half a clue about efficiency and self-sufficiency ...can do wonders for anyone intent on freeing themselves from the Slave Networks. These guys obviously have the intent to make grid electricity cheaper to produce and store and distribute to the Home Slave while the Home Slave pays through the nose for the privilege....just like they have implemented in all countries where solar is popular: the highest cost of electricity on the planet....with Slave daily service charges guaranteeing record profits even if you don't turn a thing on.They are intent on keeping the Little Guy outregulated so as to not set foot on their turf. Guaranteed returns for them.And what's that about not using any precious metals, then later on in the video mentioning one?

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2019, 10:52:33 am
content: That all seems a bit harsh.In particular...Quote from: bazza on February 11, 2019, 09:30:08 amI would say if we don't reduce global population now, we are murdering future generations.

author: george80
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2019, 11:35:22 am
content: Quote from: bazza on February 11, 2019, 09:30:08 amPERFECTLY said and demonstrably factual.Are you a skip? Sounds like you are familiar with the current power situation in Oz.They keep ramming this " cheap. clean. renewable power " crap down our throats while power prices have become the highest in the world..... and our grid fast becoming some of the least reliable.The power co's here are predicting a $2.7Bn combined profit this year. So much for cheap power.I am planning and working towards going off grid on my little 1 acre block. I have over 20Kw of solar now, in the process of setting up a 12 Kw generator and oil powered heater and intend when I make the jump, to use good old fashioned lead acid batteries.They can be made very low maintence with automatic watering systems as used for decades. The weight and size is inconsequential to me especially when taking into account the capacity and price which leaves commercial home batteries for dead and the things are worth significant money at end of life just as scrap.Of course the life expectancy is every bit as good and better than the trendy Lipos and nickels atm.My initial thoughts behind going off grid were cost and I expected that to be a ways off but wanted to start preparing and learning ahead of time not leave it till the last minute. The way our grid is going and with ludicrous RE energy targets being promised if the opposition get in at the next soon to he held election, the cost concern will be well outweighed by just having the ability to have the lights and TV on at night and the food cold in the fridge.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2019, 12:04:16 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on February 11, 2019, 10:52:33 amYes, I'm totally with Albert Bartlett in that regard. See "Arithmetic, Population and Energy"https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Albert+Bartlett&iax=videos&ia=videos

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2019, 09:31:08 pm
content: Quote from: george80 on February 11, 2019, 11:35:22 amHasn't quite got to the stage of unreliability here, but electricity costs four or five times as much as gas. I pity those who have to heat with it. Thing I don't understand is, can our politicians not do basic arithmetic? If so, why have they not looked at the cost vs returns figures for wind and solar over the world, and realised that this is going nowhere except to financial ruin? They seem to fall for any flashy advertising by the wind and solar cartels with the naivety of a child being promised a visit by Santa Claus.I now have a wind turbine visible from my workshop window. Fortunately far enough away to not be a nuisance, but to me this is ominously like spotting the tanks of the 7th Panzer Division on the horizon. Stand by to be invaded. Resistance is futile.

author: george80
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2019, 10:17:38 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on February 11, 2019, 09:31:08 pmYou are then Lucky.gas used to be the cheap energy source here and like coal, we have or at least had, many lifetimes supply. now gas is more expensive than electricity and in many parts bottled gas is cheaper than natural gas. Work that out!I'm not sure what happened to all our gas, if we sold it all to china for .1C litre or if the gas fields that were supposed to last forever ran out of they haven't bothered setting up more wells. Only few years back there was a big push for that fracking crap. Despite the problems all around the world they said it wouldn't happen here because they were going to do it differently. The only Difference a bit of research showed was more in the name they gave it rather than any procedural differences.You don't have to be a geologist to see that smashing the earths crust into little pieces can't be a good thing. Practice proved that and thankfully it was banned.Give that one to the greens or whomever had the Common sense to kill if before it killed off everything we have.QuoteI believe the thing you don't understand is they are not there to serve the interests of the people as they say ( lie) but rather the interests of their business that give them election funds and support in exchange for policy's favorable to their bottom line.They can add up and calculate real well..... where the most donations are going to come from, who'd going to pay them the most when they get out of politics, how their buddies in big biz are going to make the most money that if they don't get kickbacks they or their families have financial interest.It's all about the elite lining their own pockets and it's got so blatant now people just accept it which is the real start of the downfall of society.I used to say that one of the things Australia did best was take every failed policy and ideal from around the world and improve in it. To make it a bigger failure and waste of money etc. I now realise that's not true, lots of countries seem to do that better than anything else.Right now there is this greenwashed mental ality that Oz HAS to lead and show the world the way forward with Renewables. Where the fk did this come from and why? Our chief gubbermint greenwash scientist already said if Oz cut all emissions it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the world Climate so anyone with a modicum of intelligence would ask why we want to sacrifice our national economy and way of living for an ideal?Of course the answer is because there is a buck in it for Gubbermint and their big biz puppet masters.If it were about the environment, it' wouldn't be about building new solar and wind farms, first thing you'd do is stick solar on all the existing free space right where the power was needed.... on home rooftops. But No, they are limiting that more and more at the same time they are telling us they need more PV farms taking up land hundred's of KM from where the power is needed.Seems Illogical till you re think and realism that allowing people to have their own PV COSTS them revenue and takes away control where building solar farms to appease the hopeful that need a crutch to believe in allows them to keep the people dependent on them and therefor not only gives them revenue but what they really want, CONTROL.QuoteI have been reading up on the effects of wind turbines. The health and environmental effects are shocking. Passed off by the power co's of course as all fallacy and people whinging but the instruments they measure sub sonic sound are not lying or have opinions.Like Cigarettes the health effects which are already known and understood untill too many people get sick and the evidence becomes over whealming.In the mean time, Like the Cigarette companies, they will cash in for all they can and Fk peoples health and the environment.Probably got a good 20 years of profiteering before it all comes out and compensation has to be paid and by that time the current board members and CEO's will be long since retired with MultiMillion golden handshakes and it will be someone else's problem to deal with.This is the way Politics and Big biz work now and why worrying about ' The environment" is a complete and utter fools game.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 01:58:25 am
content: I'd rather see an actual paper ... we've been through this shit before with power lines. Hypochondriacs will hypochonder.

author: george80
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 03:03:59 am
content: Quote from: Marco on February 12, 2019, 01:58:25 amPretty sure that's what they said about Cigarettes in the '70s too.