Electric cars are becoming increasingly popular around the globe, but remain a niche market, due in large part to consumers’ concerns over the limited range of the vehicles — 35 miles per full 10 to 12 hour charge in the Chevrolet Volt (pictured), which uses an industry standard lithium-ion battery.
Scientists at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Princeton University have a better idea: They cooked up a new form of the nano-wonder material graphene for a new type of battery, the lithium-air battery, and set the highest energy storage capacity ever reported, 15,000 milliamp hours per gram (mAh/g).
The previous energy storage record was 9,000 milliamp hours per gram (mAh/g), still an astronomical improvement over the current industry standard lithium-ion batteries, which only achieve up to a measly 150 mAh/g.
Even if you don’t drive an electric car, you’re probably familiar with lithium-ion batteries: They power most laptops, mobile phones and other consumer devices. Lithium ion batteries are made up of three basic parts: A cathode, dervided from a mixture of metal and oxygen atoms, an anode made up of carbon and an electrolyte made up of lithium salt.
Lithium-air batteries, flip the script, using a pure lithium anode and a pororus carbon cathode, which cuts down on the amount of metal, and weight, in the battery. The trick is finding a carbon material that is porous enough to act as the cathode, but scientists think graphene, a nano-material derived from carbon, is the best candidate due to its incredible strength, thinness (one atom thick) and electrical conductivity.
The team at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, led by materials scientist Jie Xiao, believes that lithium-air batteries using a graphene cathode will shatter energy storage expectations within two decades.
The researchers reported their new graphene lithium-air battery’s record-breaking performance in a paper published in the journal Nano Letters in November.
First though, Xiao said that the team had to figure out a way to harness one of graphene’s most unique properties — its ultra-thin, 2D molecular structure.
“Initial trials failed due to the natural, two-dimensional morphology of graphene,” Xiao told TPM via email.
Solid graphene sheets used in the lithium-air battery’s cathode ended up being too flat to allow the necessary free flow of air molecules in and out of the battery’s cell.
Frustrated, her team pondered a different method: What if they could create a new type of graphene that was 3D, with holes to allow air to flow in and out of the battery freely?
“We successfully synthesized graphene into a highly porous, three-dimensional structure that is well suited not only for lithium-air batteries but also for many other potential energy applications,” Xiao told TPM.
Producing the new, 3D, hole-filled sheet of graphene took “about 2 days,” according to the scientist, “including an overnight drying” period.
Her team used a chemical to break-up solid graphene, liquifying it, then added it to water and stirred, producing bubbles.
When the liquid graphene dried, it settled around the bubbles, forming permanent holes in the structure, as PhysOrg reported.
These holes act as “highways,” for air, allowing it to quickly flow inside and out of the battery cell without damaging it, according to Xiao’s paper.
Conventional lithium-ion batteries are limited, and eventually fail, because their terminals suffer damage from lithium ions passing in and out many times.
However, there are still some big constraints holding Xiao’s team’s discovery back from being tested on the road, let alone installed into commercial vehicles.
For one, the pure lithium used in lithium-air batteries is extremely sensitive to water vapor, and could explode if even a little water vapor gets on it. As such, the battery could only work in a pure oxygen environment at this time, which Earth’s atmosphere is decidedly not.
However, her team has stumbled across a promising work-around to this problem: A standard industrial membrane available relatively cheaply from DuPont, which allowed the battery to function in an environment with 20 percent humidity. Now the challenge will be getting it to function in any humidity level.
But that’s not the only issue, as Xiao explained: “There are still many challenges facing this electrochemical system such as rechargeability, lifetime and power rate.”
Still, he’s hopeful that the number of scientists now looking into the material will lead to rapid progress.
“Many groups are aggressively researching metal-air batteries and we believe this to be a promising technology for future use in fuel-efficient vehicles and also in stationary (power grid) applications,” Xiao told TPM.
Correction: This post originally erroneously identified Pacific Northwest National Laboratory materials scientists Jie Xiao’s gender. Xiao is a woman. We regret the error.
Carl Franzen
Carl Franzen is TPM Idea Lab's tech reporter. He used to work for The Daily, AOL and The Atlantic Wire (though not simultaneously, thankfully). He's never met a button that didn't need to be pressed. He can be reached at carl@talkingpointsmemo.com.
Hey Carl: why don't ya ask GM what they did with the battery they had and used quite successfully for the EV1 that they had on the road 10 or so years ago and literally destroyed? The battery and the car's history are the subject of the movie Who Killed The Electric Car. You ought to look into it and ask them. The idea that they can't develop a battery that cand do more than 35 miles daily is preposterous. Of course they can and they have! Even if it were true it's a silly "concern" that is more induced by the auto industry than inherent in American car consumers. An electric vehicle that can take someone 35 miles without a charge is more than enough to meet the typical daily needs of the average car driver in the US: more than enough! Car companies are still in bed with the oil companies and they don't really want to sell too many electic vehicles for reasons entirely related to profit and profitability.
oleeb Given that the EV1 had a range of 160 miles per charge. Yeah. Obviously the auto industry is just flat-out lying when they claim they can't do better than 35 miles now.
"pororus" -> "porous" ... proofread your work much?
So long as the electricity that powers these cars comes from coal and nuclear plants, the electric car won't do anything for the environment. Instead, it'll simply shift the demand from petroleum to more centralized dirty energy sources.
That said, it would at least allow us to get the fuck out of the middle east. But I won't be celebrating until we can develop an energy infrustructure that does not generate toxic pollutants or rely on a finite fuel source.
Completely specious argument. The reduction in auto exhaust more than compensates for the tiny amount of energy the car would use. The electric plants would not be increasing their pollution one bit to produce this energy because they are already producing it.
kris.craig Since when do nuclear plants emit any pollution?
It depends upon how long term you're willing to look at the problem. Coal Ash piles/flows will eventually dry and become stable. The water table could get trashed, but standard filtration methods can help.
Petroleum will soon be prohibitively expensive and particulates, toxic gasses and even carbon dioxide are only in the atmosphere for, from a couple of years to a couple of centruries.
Nuclear waste is incredibly dangerous (almost) forever. I call that pollution, too.
Red XIVkris.craig
Now if only they can get a $550 Million Loan Garantee, they could afford to pay off their debt to the Democrate Party and still have millions to pay bonuses!
Topper01 Why does that $550 million concern you more than the $4 billion our middle east adventures have cost us?
By the way, you know who was responsible for both initially? George W. Bush.
Topper01 Whoops, that should be $4 trillion.
I did not say that it concerned me MORE than that or anything else! I don't give a rats behind who started it or who finished it! I do know that at the very least, to put the taxpayers "last in line" for recovering any money should be a punishable crime. I have yet to understand why in the #$%$^ you think I like/d bush!!
You sir, are the most arguementative I have ever met!
Topper01
" I have yet to understand why in the #$%$^ you think I like/d bush!!"
I don't know, the many, many right-wing things you say?
And I think it's pretty damn funny someone who goes to website which have the opposite ideology of theirs specifically to say contentious things on that website calling someone else 'the most argumentative' person.
If you don't want people arguing with you, don't spout bullshit right-wing talking points on a left-wing website. I mean duh.
Topper01 We would like to see a few bankers and their books opened to the public too. Soloenydra (sic-probably) seems more like a mistake or overly optimistic thinking than two Middle-East Wars, ruinous tax cuts and deregulation of a banking industry. So I agree I would like to see if their are some punishable crimes for these items too. However, you can expect neo-cons and fascist Right claiming these items are beyond the bounds, mostly because Republicans would be accused, whereas the Democratic Party (the correct name) is fair game. Hypocrisy much?
Not "right-wing" talking points at all. Not right-wing at all. I am just someone who wants our government (BOTH SIDES) held accountable! I do not mind debates, in fact I welcome them. I am not into name calling and arguing. Not always is "opposite ideology" BS.
Topper01 Oh please. Don't pretend like we haven't all seen the conservative crap you spew here almost every day.
Once again, just because of the fact that I oppose a 550 million dollar "mistake", does not mean I support two middle-east wars, or not having access to politicians bank books.
Again, not all opposing views are "neo-cons and fascist Right". Frankly I am surprised that you didn't call me a racist also!
Now, you have to admit that if everyone agreed with you, this would be a boring site!
Congradulations, You win! I will not respond to your posts again... That does not mean that I will not post - just that you are not worth my time!
Topper01 You're right. I never called you racist. I also never said all opposing views are "neo-cons and fascist Right" nor did I label you a 'neo-con' or a 'fascist.'
But the fact that you make up such obvious lives just bolsters my point.
Topper01 "I will not respond to your posts again"
The number of times I've seen wingnuts on TPM say that and then do exactly the opposite is too many to count. I look forward to the next time you tell me you won't respond to me again.
Topper01 and you sir are the dumbest troll ever,, no research and dont care who started it just blame the dems for it,,, rethuglican puke
Topper01 No, you didn't "say" that one thing concerned you more than the other.
You conclusively proved it by incessantly, tediously and mostly falsely blathering on about one thing while entirely ignoring the other with the sole exception of when responding to challenges like Squid's.
hunter05Topper01 Intellectually challenged as this one may be, he is a genius in comparison to dug.
Topper01 What debt to the "Democrate [sic] Party"?
The funding for the Solyndra loan came from a program enacted during the Bush administration. All the Obama administration did was follow the approval process that was already in place.
You claim not to be a ring-winger, but then why did you falsely claim that the $550 million loan came from the Democratic Party? Such snyde remarks don't add anything to an adult conversation.
If you don't want people to jump on you for posting a dissenting view, you can achieve this by showing some respect for your fellow readers by making an intelligent point rather than posting a witless jab that isn't even based on something real.
If they can bring this to a feasible product—even if they can’t completely beat the humidity problem—an order of magnitude increase in storage capacity would seem to allow wind and solar to become something more than a niche power source as far as base load power generation. That is if it scales, and if it can be produced at a reasonable cost. Right now, wind and solar are nearly useless for base load power production. This seems a promising breakthrough, though one that is very much in its infancy.
I don’t want to go slightly off topic, but… Right now, we are stuck with energy sources that inarguably damage our atmosphere. We have no workable solutions for converting the bulk of America’s power generation to eco-friendly sources. The above looks like a promising component, as does the work on the other end of the scale that will be done at ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France.
I’m fond of wind and solar power, but I’m realistic about it as well. It feels good to add solar power to your house, but it does nothing at all to help solve the problem of powering our planet in an eco-friendly way. I’m not criticizing home owners that can put up solar panels—if I could afford it, I’d probably do it too, even though I’m realistic about this not being a feasible solution for powering the planet. Put another way, it’s trying to solve a massive energy demand, with virtually microscopic projects. We need big solutions to this big problem. Massive solar power/wind farms sound great—until you actually have to build them. Even if people would be willing to fund them, to put this politely, people generally HATE having any massive project built near them, and solar/wind farms large enough to power America would take up the majority of one southwestern State. Hmmm…something useful to come out of Arizona? Seriously though, the NIMBY groups are a powerful force, and just getting little solar/wind projects built is an arduous task.
And that’s just America. How do we power our planet in an eco-friendly way? Well, one could say that America uses far more than its fair share of power, so America should conserve, conserve, conserve. I wouldn’t be that one though. Are we content in having a billion+ people live in astonishing squalor, or do we want them—and everyone else—to have a standard of living generally comparable our own? I know, I know, the poor will always been there, but damn it, sometimes seems that we aren’t even trying to fix that problem—and yes, it is related to clean, plentiful energy production.
---Continue from above, exceeded max. post length----
Now for the solution. Damned of I know. Small breakthroughs that could potentially lead to BIG solutions as in the article above are a good step though. Of course, all of this assumes that we want to switch to eco-friendly power sources. Does anyone really doubt that humankind is causing the planet to warm, and that our power generation is the cause? If so, I’m not going to try to change your mind—in the face of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, your mind is already made up.
Please don’t bash my for the obvious flaws in doing anything meaningful in this realm—I know too well the political, social, and fiscal barriers to massive projects. It does tend to be depressing when examined closely. Hacking some money out of America’s defense budget and putting it toward large-scale useful projects might be a start though.
Sorry for the typos. Livefyre really needs an edit feature.
imkmu Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Wind and solar are a fraction of the solution, but that doesn't mean that their fraction isn't very important. As the saying goes, there are no silver bullets, but we could sure use a bag of silver BBs.
I can't wait for this to possibly be significant -- in two decades???
cloud48 People like you are the reason why the Xerox Parc Alto didn't go on sale and Steve Jobs turned the concept into the Macintosh and stole their thunder.
Flying Squidcloud48 Well, that and the deal Jobs signed with Xerox to let him see and develop the conceptual stuff going on at PARC... I bet there were a few execs at Xerox wishing they'd done that differently, though ;)
Great.
Now we can give this technology away to the Chinese and they can sell these batteries to us.
pecohen Yes, that's what matters, who is selling the batteries, not whether or not humanity will survive.
Flying Squidpecohen Exaggeration, the hallmark of fear-mongering. A sensible person would be concerned about both issues, and many other related issues; lack of coherent industrial policy in the US, loss of manufacturing base and its implications for homegrown development of inventions and patents, widespread job loss, out of control growth in and abuse of the H-1B visa program, accelerating income inequality, increasing tensions between trading partners, financial and currency manipulations, child and prison labor, lax environmental regulation, etc. Oh, but the very survival of humanity is at stake, so better to shut down your frontal lobe.
calvinpoxnardiiipecohen What does any of that have to do with climate change?
Flying Squidpecohen <rimshot> Good night, folks! Flying Squid's going to be performing here all week.
calvinpoxnardiiipecohen In other words, nothing. That's what I thought.
Flying Squidpecohen You apparently missed the part about "lax environmental regulation."
calvinpoxnardiiipecohen You're right, I did. Because it was mixed in with a ton of stuff which has nothing to do with climate change.
Flying SquidpecohenIt's big of you to admit that you are a lazy reader and your reasoning powers are one-dimensional. Panicking about "whether or not humanity will survive" only makes finding solutions more difficult.
calvinpoxnardiiipecohen I'm not panicking and I admitted no such thing. I like how you just keep being rude instead of having an actual discussion though. It's so much easier than explaining yourself.
Flying Squidpecohen If you're looking for me to explain myself, read my original post. This time actually read the whole thing, please. Then think about the web of relationships of each point in connection to the problem of global warming (the term "climate change" is a Frank Luntz-generated misdirection designed to minimize the issue in people's minds). Respond again, if you like.
calvinpoxnardiiipecohen I read your post the first time. It was both rude and all over the map. Furthermore, please provide evidence that Frank Luntz came up with the term 'climate change' and not, you know, scientists. Because that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Flying Squidcalvinpoxnardiiipecohen I definitely recall there being some scientific backing to moving over to the phrase "climate change" on the basis that the warming is not global - there will be pockets of local cooling - and that the temperature change is only one component of the effects of our activities - the changes in precipitation patterns and the general increase in extreme weather will probably be more anthropologically significant.
It was also supposed to stop the morons on Fox News saying "see, no global warming" any time it snowed, but of course there's nothing that can be done to stop Fox News being lying asshats.
Criminy, you're lazy. This took 5 seconds to google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[7]
Didn't I say this was great? Sure, it's great if the lifetime is extended a bit by this.
There are other issues as well. We don't have to be single-minded about it.
pecohen I assumed it was sarcasm. Sorry.
Handy I'm not sure what you meant to paste, but I don't know that a car that's also a giant iPad is the best solution.
Use Roof top solar panels to charge your car =100% green!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like