I've been watching stuff like this for years and years and nothing has yet 'changed the world'. I'll get excited when a product exists with this battery in it.
I will not only get excited, I will finally build my electric powered WIG hovercraft and not have to deal with a poison belching turbocharged boxer engine. If any craft could fly electric it's a WIG machine, once your on the bubble nothing is more efficient, not wheels, not tracks, not conventional wings, nothing.
Sam, you use more NASA spinoff tech than you can imagine. The current boondoggle not withstanding, NASA is one of the premier R&D sources. And has been since the beginning.
NACA + NASA has been doing flight and space research for 100 years. NACA research on boundary layers is still relevant today. It is easy and fashionable to dump on the US. Have at it. NASA contracts with Boeing and SpaceX for services. The US space effort is a public private partnership managed with contracts. Detractors insist that SpaceX should not be counted as a US accomplishment. Some go so far as to point out Elon Musk's South African birth. NASA Boeing and SpaceX along with many others are all part of the US space effort. The trouble is that NASA has become tied to a specific group of vendors/partners. An effort was made to make this less exclusive and that is where NASA started working with SpaceX. IIRC the first NASA money was paid to SpaceX for the 4th launch of the Falcon 1. SpaceX has a significant customer base outside NASA.
ALL of which could have been done outside of "the race to space." Why, also, would not this belong to the public, being that taxpayers footed the bill?
There's been literally dozens of similar news with different research groups, every year for the past decade.. they all have one thing in common, none have ever exited the lab.. i hope one day it happens but i am not optimistic
Toyota has bet their company on it too. (This is one of the reasons they gave for not building EVs “yet.”) Elon said it is a gamble to wait for solid state in the near term because by the time solid state would leave the lab and be in EVs, he’d have multiple generations of LIon batteries in the market, and his prices could be cheaper than first gen solid state. (I believe some old Electric Viking videos went over this.)
Like others have said: I too have seen announcements like this over the years without any true breakthrough really showing up. But.. I want to remain optimistic: I am crossing all my fingers and toes that this is true because it would be so important for the world. The world is really waiting for something like this. If true, you can bet that companies like Tesla, CATL, Panasonic, etc. will be all over this before I've finished typing this comment. ;)
I was just having a electric vehical conversation and mentioned battery technology will improve over the next several years. was 2 days later and this video shows up. Sent the link to my friend "SEE!! Told ya."
Bring on the future! Higher density, safer batteries with less need for exotic minerals seems like a winning combination for greater adoption in all industries.
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 you are completely missing the point, the private space industry's next step is space mining, and there is allot more out there then on earth. this is 20 year plus tech, specially considering the speed NASA moves. it will happen eventually. this level of battery tech isn't needed for the auto sector. aerospace and space yet though. I could see aircraft replacing their turbines..... also, he said it's 2x less in weight and and more in power that has unlimited cycles meaning it'll outlast the car, and the next 20.... and you lied about selenium, its more abundant not less. much more. watch the video all the way through next time. it's also almost impossible to set fire to it... and operate in almost twice the heat without cooling and testing the cold part this year. the technology has been advancing for decades, the last decade there has been more development in batteries then anything else, and more research in batteries in the last 10 years then all before it combined. 10's of BILLIONS of dollars!!!
I can't wait to see the developments and winners in the battery/energy storage, EV, crypto and genomics sectors over the next 10 years. The suspense is killing me!
This reminds me of the questions in IQ tests "Which one of these things does not fit the set?" Let's see: battery development -- real resources expended for improvements in a real product, EV evolution -- real resources expended for improvements in a real product, genomic research -- real resources expended for improvements in a spectrum of products, crypto -- real resources expended in the pursuit of a fictional product. Hmmm, which one doesn't fit? Beats me.
@@SkyRiver1 I think you are talking about crypto? You might want to look into blockchain technology a bit more. Removing the need for centralized agencies and protecting ourselves from the CBDCs that all the governments will soon be issuing seems pretty important to me.
OK. Another day another new battery that will change the world. In america we have a saying- show me the money! If this really works the Chinese will steal this technology and perfect it!
They keep saying double energy density AND 40% lighter, mixing weight and density units which is confusing. Are they the same thing, given the 10% for non battery structural weight, or truly cumulative? If the energy density is double you would obviously need half the weight for the same capacity if the weight was 100% battery. Like you're trying to count the benefit twice. If you mean double the density, otherwise stated as half the weight, just say one and we can infer the other through simple maths without the confusion. If it really is twice as dense AND 40% lighter, i.e. it can fit twice as much energy into 60% of the weight then it would be 3.33 times as energy dense in which case why not just say 333% (not 5x) higher energy density which sounds even more impressive than the double and 40% figures separately?
The whole point of government-funded research is that they can go down unknown tracks and won't go out of business if they hit a dead end. It's not always a dead end though!
The battery can't be double the energy density AND 40% lighter. Since energy density is based on weight. It's just got higher energy density. If those claims were true, it would have 300+ % more energy density
Fellow Victorian, appreciate the content. Must say though I’ve never left heard NASA pronounced they way you do 😂 reminds me of Benedict Cumberbatch and the penguins!
Solid state batteries are undoubtedly the future (all current EV battery tech will be rendered obsolete almost immediately), but, it's been the holy grail for years now, and we're still probably 5+ years from seeing something that's cheap enough, meets all safety requirements, less demand for raw materials and can be mass-produced at scale. There are so many videos claiming battery breakthroughs that I've lost count, so don't hold your breath for this one!
400 Watt/kg ist not an energy but a power density. So what did Elon really say? Why is this SSB so much better than Quantumscape/Toyota solutions? Have you ever seen this battery in mass production or is it just a NASA-promise?
Sam: Love your show, but please don't make the mistake of accociating cobalt and nickel as 'rare earth materials`. Rare earth materials are a specific group of metals located ar the bottom of the periodic table. Cobalt and nickel are very expensive, thats the only discouragement for using them.
Sam, you have to remember that NASA is not a private company, so it doesn't have to be efficient. Is more important for the US Congress that NASA projects generates jobs in key states ( like Florida and Texas ). Also as a fan of SAPCEX, who has been following that company even before I knew Tesla existed, without NASA help, SPACEX wouldn't exist today.
500 wH/kg is close to the requirements for regional aviation, but another factor of 2 or 3 energy density gain would be needed for long-range air travel. (See "Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Electrify Commercial Aircraft" in ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 2, 663-668.)
@@MattOGormanSmith Just ran across a Two Bit da Vinci RUclips video on CNT flywheels. 2700 Wh/kg!! That's more than twice what long-range, trans-continental aircraft would require.
All fingers crossed it comes to fruition in thru not too distant future. I thoroughly enjoyed your report it was clearly very well researched and very well explained. Thank you, Hussein
From the article: “Not only does this design eliminate 30 to 40 percent of the battery’s weight, it also allows us to double or even triple the energy it can store..." The battery specs are 500Wh/kg, whereas, say, Tesla's 4680s are around 285Wh/kg. So that's 40% more energy for a battery that's the same weight as a 4680 pack, *OR* the same amount of energy for 40% less weight. Not both. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
I agree. We need clarity on this simple point and should apply one variable at a time in describing its density. I assume NASA hasn't increased the storage by double for a battery that weighs, at the same time, 40% less. If that's true, and comparing it to the state of the are 4680s (285Wh/kg) , NASA's technology would have to achieve 570 Wh/0.6kg which is 960 Wh/kg.
This may be nitpicking, but aircraft can't use gasoline, they use one of a few different fuels that are not as vulnerable to air pressure differences. You didn't mention two of the enormous advantages of electric aircraft. When a plane is at altitude... 30,000 feet, say... and is preparing to land, they can use regen on their way back down, similar to an EV car as it rolls down a mountainside. By reversing the prop blades to act as wind turbines rather than providing propulsive power, the plane can put some of the energy back into the battery that it used to get airborne. Also, since fueled aircraft need oxygen in the air to operate, they eventually reach an altitude above which the plane cannot fly. Elon Musk did the calculations that show that an electric aircraft can "porpoise" out of the atmosphere into the lower levels of space, "coasting" without drag for significant distances until gravity pulls it back down into the air. An electric aircraft could significantly extend its range this way. Musk appears in the movie, Iron Man II, in which he has a cameo in a party scene with Gwynneth Paltrow and Robert Downey Jr. He tells Tony Stark that he has invented a new electric jet. "You have? We can make it work", says Stark.
No more fossil fuel jets? That would be a stretch. If 66 kWh equals 12 gallons of gasoline, then you'd need 625,000 lbs of these cells in a 787 equivelent. That is still twice what the fuel weighs now. A lot closer to equivelent but not really plausible yet. You'd have 1/2 the range or a cargo reduced by 312,000 lbs
Back in the mid-sixties, they released the technology that was going to make "fuel cells replace batteries" and provide the motive power for electric cars. We used said fuel cells, still do, in space and other tight places, but lead/acid, carbon/zinc alkaline, and now lithium remain the mainstay of our portable electric power. I was working with solid state electronics in the mid-sixties as a boy, worked it two decades as a Marine, and we now are coming back to those long ago hopes. I'm hoping my forty year old Mercedes diesel will last the rest of my life.
Cutting edge technology could work brilliantly in concept..Or, even for NASA programs......However, it all comes down to "Cost"...Which may takes years of development & economies of scale to bring it to the market for mass consumption.
Very interested. Where I live the battery capacity drops by 40% to 60% in the winter. A 250 mile range drops to less than 100 miles. And I haven't even driven in the coldest temperatures.
@@JohnR31415 Or leave your car plugged in in winter - like everyone with a gasoline powered car (frozen oil and coolant reduces gasoline powered cars range to zero in Canada). Sump heaters have been a thing since cars were a thing in Canada - they are a heater pad that is either glued or bolted to the sump or screwed into the sump drain plug.
NASA is really good at basic "boring" research. The problem comes when something is high enough profile for the Congress to take notice and start grubbing around for "their district/state's share".
If they succeed now and patent it now. It will take at least 20 years for this patent to expire before it could be mass produced. This was what happened to Lithium iron phosphate battery. The key is to mass produced and lower cost per kw.
We'd both be rich just off of all the "GAME CHANGING REVOLUTIONARY" crap that has been announced this year alone, with exactly 0 new things on the market.
Selenium - an element that occurs is a lot of minerals ores as an alternative to sulphur. Copper Selenide was used as a semiconductor in the 1930’s before germanium and silicon became popular. It is also used for “bluing steel”. Selenium makes you stink like garlic is VERY low concentrations however and hydrogen Selenide is as toxic as hell. Selenium compounds eat holes in stainless steel…
@@l0I0I0I0 It’s absorbed rapidly through the skin. If you work round a plant that has selenides, your entire family knows it because you will be sweating it out for days after you leave. Gloves are a very good idea.
@@silverc4s146That's a ridiculous thing to say. You know something which is pretty toxic to "have around"? Iron. Also, copper, and basically all the metals in the periodic table, as they all can induce acute toxicity in living organisms quite easily. Yet we have iron and copper around us all over the place, and you know why? Because as long as we don't grind the stuff into a fine powder and ingest it it's completely harmless to us. Batteries containing selenium and sulfur would have zero toxicity issues with regards to humans, because you know, it's all sealed away inside the battery. So, safe. No worries. Stop the hysterical misinformation please.
No mention of all the Universities and Toyota that are involved, also old news "By YURI KAGEYAMA AP Business Writer April 8, 2022, 8:59 PM TOKYO -- Nissan is working with NASA on a new type of battery for electric vehicles that promises to charge quicker and be lighter yet safe, the Japanese automaker said Friday."
NASA, give Elon manufacturing rights, & make an affordable 'people's car' to win over the Coal Rollers & Fudsters, but whatever happens don't give it to GM!!! LOL
Lesson I learned from Elon Musk: making a prototype is easy... getting that prototype into productions is VERY HARD! Solid state has been around for a while now and this report has highlighted all the advantages of this new tech BUT how expensive is it and how hard is it to manufacture? No matter how great it works in the lab, if NASA can't mass produce these batteries, they're NOT going to change anything!
You are right. A new product like this comes from laboratory engineers to get it into production you need production engineers. Which are made up of planning and methods engineers A completely different types of engineers to make it cost-effective.
Sam, after seeing the many comments on 'believe when I see it', perhaps you could give some follow up on the likely hood of any of the myriad of new technologies that might actually make it to market. We all know that in the global maneuvering ,to be the 'BIG' player, companies will squash and keep technologies from coming to market. Your thoughts on a true switch to 'other' energy systems, replacing 'BIG' oil would be of great interest !
Sam - let us know when this battery is in production and can be ordered - otherwise it is a mirage or phantomware and of no real value. As a chemist, I synthesized some amazing polymers with incredible properties but they never made it out of the lab.
Taking off is the main reason the battery has to be able to discharge at such high rates. I wonder if a ground assist would be useful. Something like they have on an air craft carrier. The climb rate could be adjusted to the power capacity of the battery and cruising would use even less power. The main consideration would then be the energy capacity of the battery, and less, how fast it could discharge its energy. Also range would be increased by not using so much energy to take off.
I have no plans to sit on a self sustainable fire which rules out one chemistry immediately. I continue to wait for solid state. Too bad that all of Tesla's battery plant will become a white elephant when they decide they need to roll solids. Good ol' pouches, phones, laptops have always been the masters at saving weight. Go NASA, or all the rest experimenting with sulphur.
Think you are being a little harsh on NASA. They have always been a driving force for research into air and space flight, just sometimes they choose the wrong people. But mostly they are on the right track, as shown by this example of their desire to move us forward.
Sorry Sam Evans it's unlikely any solid state battery will be good enough or as good as ammonia or hydrogen fuel which are also just barely hood enough for long range large commercial transports. I am an aeronautical engineer with 20 years experience in the aviation industry. The Breguet range equation (battery electric aircraft version) offers an easy way to calculate the potential range with a few simple parameters. I have calculated what it is for various battery technologies and they are vastly insufficient for long-range commercial transports but for short-range commuters there is some potential and they could have very low operating costs.
Here are the estimates for far out battery technologies. 500 Wh/kg yields 1900 km range* SABERS 1200 Wh/kg yields 4600 km range* SABERS 2600 Wh/kg yields 10000 km range* Li-S * With my upper limit estimates for equation parameters L/D=22, ETA=0.95, Mbat/Moto=0.5 Ammonia or hydrogen fuel can easily match today's range with new more efficient airframes with the above parameters.
It will only change the world if it is scalable! If you can’t produce billions of these cells, if it can’t be made extremely cheap, it will only power astronomically expensive projects, like NASA’s projects.
I won't hold my breath waiting for this battery to go into productions, but when it is available then it will also mean that a proper 4wd Ute will be viable. Yesss
Cobalt and Nickel are not Rare Earth materials. Rare Earths belong to the Lanthanide and Actinide series of the Periodic Table. Neodymium is one commonly found example of a Rare Earth element. Ironically, most of them are not as rare as other commonly used elements, such as Selenium, Silver, Iodine, Cadmium and Mercury.
This is why NASA does best new technology and new ideas. Space x is using other's ideas via white paper and older tech. Almost nothing Space X has done is innovated.
A lot of people might mock or complain about NASA but there are a lot of things that have come from the exploration of space the have benefited humans.
NASA has developed a lot of good tech over the years. It doesn't however have any incentive to commercialize this tech. The best approach with NASA is to periodically cut its budget drastically, forcing the engineers who have this great tech to take it out of the lab and to the market.
You say that a battery has a high energy capacity of 400 Watts/kg, but the Watt is not a measure of energy, it is measure of power. It's all very well saying a battery is 400 Watt, which usually means its maximum power, but what matters more is how long it can sustain that power. You need to quote the battery's ENERGY capacity. This is usually measured in kiloWatt hours (kWh). I would have expected you to know better🤔
Like others: Paint me as skeptical. I looked at a couple of articles about the NASA announcement and what is not discussed is just as telling as what is discussed. - No mention of cycle life. If the battery can only be cycled a few hundred times it will have a very limited set of applications. - Production processes. If the production process is not scalable, it is not a breakthrough in anything but a scientific novelty. In addition, if the production process is radically different than existing battery production, it will be difficult to get the volume ramped up enough to be significant. A lot of companies and researchers have announced their breakthroughs in Solid State batteries, but issues like these are the hurdles that have kept them from being 'real'
Yes, the energy density and safety is impressive, but what are the economics of making them at scale? If this is just new chemistry that can mostly be inserted into existing production facilities and the materials are cheap enough, then it's a game changer. However, these are big ifs. NASA doesn't normally trouble itself with how much things cost or how hard they are to make. Specification is key for them, not the economics of the product.
NASA uses the acronym SABERS (solid state architecture batteries for enhanced rechargeability and safety); NASA applies 'holey graphene' material and sulphur-selenium material. I assume that the performance of this battery is comparable with GMG's state-of-the-art Aluminum graphene battery (thumbs up Australia!), that does not even depend on Lithium. Australia has big reserves of Bauxite. Industry is going to upscale the production of graphene materials, no doubt about that. I hope the best 'graphene material' inventions/discoveries will be licensed to the battery industry. Very interesting calculation about the 'minimal' energy/weight (KWh/Kg) and power/weight (Watt/Kg) battery requirements for economic air travel by means of electric airplanes.
Jam tomorrow! Let's see prototypes circulated to 3rd-party users (car manufacturers, etc.) and get their feedback before we get into what your own words called "NASA's dream". Great to hear of new (actual) stuff but dreams...?
The issue with NASA is that it's funding is dependent on the government, so it has to make "bulletproof" projects that can survive regime changes, thus inefficient.
I've been watching stuff like this for years and years and nothing has yet 'changed the world'. I'll get excited when a product exists with this battery in it.
I will not only get excited, I will finally build my electric powered WIG hovercraft and not have to deal with a poison belching turbocharged boxer engine. If any craft could fly electric it's a WIG machine, once your on the bubble nothing is more efficient, not wheels, not tracks, not conventional wings, nothing.
Tesla has changed the world.
You haven’t noticed the advent of the electric car - maybe pay closer attention? 😂
You're an idi0t
Yep. I'll believe it when I see it.
Sam, you use more NASA spinoff tech than you can imagine. The current boondoggle not withstanding, NASA is one of the premier R&D sources. And has been since the beginning.
NACA + NASA has been doing flight and space research for 100 years. NACA research on boundary layers is still relevant today. It is easy and fashionable to dump on the US. Have at it.
NASA contracts with Boeing and SpaceX for services. The US space effort is a public private partnership managed with contracts. Detractors insist that SpaceX should not be counted as a US accomplishment. Some go so far as to point out Elon Musk's South African birth. NASA Boeing and SpaceX along with many others are all part of the US space effort.
The trouble is that NASA has become tied to a specific group of vendors/partners. An effort was made to make this less exclusive and that is where NASA started working with SpaceX. IIRC the first NASA money was paid to SpaceX for the 4th launch of the Falcon 1. SpaceX has a significant customer base outside NASA.
Exactly! Also, number above is probably a scam of some sort.
ALL of which could have been done outside of "the race to space." Why, also, would not this belong to the public, being that taxpayers footed the bill?
@@timower5850 DARPA is probably involved; hence no widespread public announcements.
@@timower5850 Yes we paid for it! Would think we should receive the benefits without excessive corporate mark ups.
Thanks!
There's been literally dozens of similar news with different research groups, every year for the past decade.. they all have one thing in common, none have ever exited the lab.. i hope one day it happens but i am not optimistic
Wasn't there one developed at Georga Tech a year or two ago that is presently in real commercial development? Can't remember the name.
@@SkyRiver1 isn't it Solid Power?
@@MatthewDouglas805 Sounds right.
Toyota has bet their company on it too. (This is one of the reasons they gave for not building EVs “yet.”) Elon said it is a gamble to wait for solid state in the near term because by the time solid state would leave the lab and be in EVs, he’d have multiple generations of LIon batteries in the market, and his prices could be cheaper than first gen solid state. (I believe some old Electric Viking videos went over this.)
"Unobtainium"
Like others have said: I too have seen announcements like this over the years without any true breakthrough really showing up. But.. I want to remain optimistic: I am crossing all my fingers and toes that this is true because it would be so important for the world. The world is really waiting for something like this. If true, you can bet that companies like Tesla, CATL, Panasonic, etc. will be all over this before I've finished typing this comment. ;)
I was just having a electric vehical conversation and mentioned battery technology will improve over the next several years. was 2 days later and this video shows up. Sent the link to my friend "SEE!! Told ya."
Bring on the future! Higher density, safer batteries with less need for exotic minerals seems like a winning combination for greater adoption in all industries.
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 you are completely missing the point, the private space industry's next step is space mining, and there is allot more out there then on earth. this is 20 year plus tech, specially considering the speed NASA moves. it will happen eventually. this level of battery tech isn't needed for the auto sector. aerospace and space yet though. I could see aircraft replacing their turbines..... also, he said it's 2x less in weight and and more in power that has unlimited cycles meaning it'll outlast the car, and the next 20.... and you lied about selenium, its more abundant not less. much more. watch the video all the way through next time. it's also almost impossible to set fire to it... and operate in almost twice the heat without cooling and testing the cold part this year. the technology has been advancing for decades, the last decade there has been more development in batteries then anything else, and more research in batteries in the last 10 years then all before it combined. 10's of BILLIONS of dollars!!!
@@TheInsaneupsdriver space mining? lol
BTW. Planes don't run on gasoline. It's a type of high grade diesel.
I can't wait to see the developments and winners in the battery/energy storage, EV, crypto and genomics sectors over the next 10 years. The suspense is killing me!
Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not. 😑
@@pdloder It's not
@@turtley8883 cool
This reminds me of the questions in IQ tests "Which one of these things does not fit the set?" Let's see: battery development -- real resources expended for improvements in a real product, EV evolution -- real resources expended for improvements in a real product, genomic research -- real resources expended for improvements in a spectrum of products, crypto -- real resources expended in the pursuit of a fictional product. Hmmm, which one doesn't fit? Beats me.
@@SkyRiver1 I think you are talking about crypto? You might want to look into blockchain technology a bit more. Removing the need for centralized agencies and protecting ourselves from the CBDCs that all the governments will soon be issuing seems pretty important to me.
One thing, NOTHING IS GOVERNMENT FUNDED, ITS ALL Taxpayer Funded.
OK. Another day another new battery that will change the world. In america we have a saying- show me the money! If this really works the Chinese will steal this technology and perfect it!
Never A Straight Answer. NASA.
They keep saying double energy density AND 40% lighter, mixing weight and density units which is confusing. Are they the same thing, given the 10% for non battery structural weight, or truly cumulative? If the energy density is double you would obviously need half the weight for the same capacity if the weight was 100% battery. Like you're trying to count the benefit twice. If you mean double the density, otherwise stated as half the weight, just say one and we can infer the other through simple maths without the confusion. If it really is twice as dense AND 40% lighter, i.e. it can fit twice as much energy into 60% of the weight then it would be 3.33 times as energy dense in which case why not just say 333% (not 5x) higher energy density which sounds even more impressive than the double and 40% figures separately?
The whole point of government-funded research is that they can go down unknown tracks and won't go out of business if they hit a dead end. It's not always a dead end though!
You've reported battery "breakthrough"s before, Viking. The question is whether it is scalable.
Every week.
@Bob MaGillacutty. It's scalable every week?? That was quick!... 🤣
@@alexmanojlovic768 Viking's enthusiasm is always growing.
@@jamesvandamme7786 I meant battery scalability... 😁
The battery can't be double the energy density AND 40% lighter. Since energy density is based on weight. It's just got higher energy density. If those claims were true, it would have 300+ % more energy density
Zackly.
Another day another world beater.
Excellent report on some very exciting news.Sam! Keep us informed on new developments.
Fellow Victorian, appreciate the content. Must say though I’ve never left heard NASA pronounced they way you do 😂 reminds me of Benedict Cumberbatch and the penguins!
Viking has some sort of bug makes him pronounce A's as R's; that's my take (I mentioned the same in a comment).
Solid state batteries are undoubtedly the future (all current EV battery tech will be rendered obsolete almost immediately), but, it's been the holy grail for years now, and we're still probably 5+ years from seeing something that's cheap enough, meets all safety requirements, less demand for raw materials and can be mass-produced at scale. There are so many videos claiming battery breakthroughs that I've lost count, so don't hold your breath for this one!
400 Watt/kg ist not an energy but a power density. So what did Elon really say? Why is this SSB so much better than Quantumscape/Toyota solutions? Have you ever seen this battery in mass production or is it just a NASA-promise?
No reply.
when you said 400 watts per kilo did you mean 400kw/kg?
Sam: Love your show, but please don't make the mistake of accociating cobalt and nickel as 'rare earth materials`. Rare earth materials are a specific group of metals located ar the bottom of the periodic table.
Cobalt and nickel are very expensive, thats the only discouragement for using them.
Sam, you have to remember that NASA is not a private company, so it doesn't have to be efficient. Is more important for the US Congress that NASA projects generates jobs in key states ( like Florida and Texas ). Also as a fan of SAPCEX, who has been following that company even before I knew Tesla existed, without NASA help, SPACEX wouldn't exist today.
500 wH/kg is close to the requirements for regional aviation, but another factor of 2 or 3 energy density gain would be needed for long-range air travel. (See "Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Electrify Commercial Aircraft" in ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 2, 663-668.)
If shorter range planes become much more economical than jet liners, it may change the pattern of demand for longer range flights.
@@MattOGormanSmith Just ran across a Two Bit da Vinci RUclips video on CNT flywheels. 2700 Wh/kg!! That's more than twice what long-range, trans-continental aircraft would require.
All fingers crossed it comes to fruition in thru not too distant future.
I thoroughly enjoyed your report it was clearly very well researched and very well explained. Thank you, Hussein
Selenium is very rare expensive element I can not see that helping price any.
From the article: “Not only does this design eliminate 30 to 40 percent of the battery’s weight, it also allows us to double or even triple the energy it can store..." The battery specs are 500Wh/kg, whereas, say, Tesla's 4680s are around 285Wh/kg. So that's 40% more energy for a battery that's the same weight as a 4680 pack, *OR* the same amount of energy for 40% less weight. Not both. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
I agree. We need clarity on this simple point and should apply one variable at a time in describing its density. I assume NASA hasn't increased the storage by double for a battery that weighs, at the same time, 40% less. If that's true, and comparing it to the state of the are 4680s (285Wh/kg) , NASA's technology would have to achieve 570 Wh/0.6kg which is 960 Wh/kg.
Stop being the TESLA Whoor! Must is even making them fool!
This may be nitpicking, but aircraft can't use gasoline, they use one of a few different fuels that are not as vulnerable to air pressure differences.
You didn't mention two of the enormous advantages of electric aircraft.
When a plane is at altitude... 30,000 feet, say... and is preparing to land, they can use regen on their way back down, similar to an EV car as it rolls down a mountainside. By reversing the prop blades to act as wind turbines rather than providing propulsive power, the plane can put some of the energy back into the battery that it used to get airborne.
Also, since fueled aircraft need oxygen in the air to operate, they eventually reach an altitude above which the plane cannot fly. Elon Musk did the calculations that show that an electric aircraft can "porpoise" out of the atmosphere into the lower levels of space, "coasting" without drag for significant distances until gravity pulls it back down into the air. An electric aircraft could significantly extend its range this way.
Musk appears in the movie, Iron Man II, in which he has a cameo in a party scene with Gwynneth Paltrow and Robert Downey Jr. He tells Tony Stark that he has invented a new electric jet. "You have? We can make it work", says Stark.
Great news Sam. YOU WORK REALLY HARD ! Your RUclips channel is ESSENTIAL viewing. Once above the clouds solar panels could be used too.
Yes the #ISS uses their solar panels for everything already.
No more fossil fuel jets? That would be a stretch. If 66 kWh equals 12 gallons of gasoline, then you'd need 625,000 lbs of these cells in a 787 equivelent. That is still twice what the fuel weighs now. A lot closer to equivelent but not really plausible yet. You'd have 1/2 the range or a cargo reduced by 312,000 lbs
I wonder what it is made of?
Materials need to be plentiful.
i wonder which battery will truly change the game.. there seems to be a news everyday about a game changing battery..
Lfp for cars
Solid State for Boats, Airplanes
and super cars
Na-ion for Solar Panels
Li-ion for super cars until solid states kick's in
@@greecemobile7610 TY
Here we go again, I shall watch this with a pinch of salt :-)
Can you please pass the salt? 🧂😃
@@AI_HQ I'm all out of salt, its time to bring out the popcorn : )~
Govt funds much research through govt agencies and universities.
Back in the mid-sixties, they released the technology that was going to make "fuel cells replace batteries" and provide the motive power for electric cars. We used said fuel cells, still do, in space and other tight places, but lead/acid, carbon/zinc alkaline, and now lithium remain the mainstay of our portable electric power. I was working with solid state electronics in the mid-sixties as a boy, worked it two decades as a Marine, and we now are coming back to those long ago hopes. I'm hoping my forty year old Mercedes diesel will last the rest of my life.
Without NASA, there would be no SpaceX.
Can't call it a game changer yet until we get insights on our ability to manufacture it.
Cutting edge technology could work brilliantly in concept..Or, even for NASA programs......However, it all comes down to "Cost"...Which may takes years of development & economies of scale to bring it to the market for mass consumption.
Very interested. Where I live the battery capacity drops by 40% to 60% in the winter. A 250 mile range drops to less than 100 miles. And I haven't even driven in the coldest temperatures.
So get a car with battery conditioning - with a heat pump.
@@JohnR31415 Or leave your car plugged in in winter - like everyone with a gasoline powered car (frozen oil and coolant reduces gasoline powered cars range to zero in Canada). Sump heaters have been a thing since cars were a thing in Canada - they are a heater pad that is either glued or bolted to the sump or screwed into the sump drain plug.
Interesting report, thanks. Great news if commercially viable. One thing -- most (large) aircraft of course burn kerosene, not gasoline.
NASA is really good at basic "boring" research. The problem comes when something is high enough profile for the Congress to take notice and start grubbing around for "their district/state's share".
If they succeed now and patent it now. It will take at least 20 years for this patent to expire before it could be mass produced. This was what happened to Lithium iron phosphate battery. The key is to mass produced and lower cost per kw.
This is fantastic news. NASA doesn't make stuff up. Hope they can mass produce this cheap. It's the answer to many things.
If I only had a dollar for every "battery breakthrough...."
We'd both be rich just off of all the "GAME CHANGING REVOLUTIONARY" crap that has been announced this year alone, with exactly 0 new things on the market.
Solenium, sulfer and sodium 500 WH. Would love to see the particulars. Can it be mass produced and even printed? TY for the vid!
Selenium - an element that occurs is a lot of minerals ores as an alternative to sulphur. Copper Selenide was used as a semiconductor in the 1930’s before germanium and silicon became popular. It is also used for “bluing steel”.
Selenium makes you stink like garlic is VERY low concentrations however and hydrogen Selenide is as toxic as hell.
Selenium compounds eat holes in stainless steel…
@@allangibson8494 I'll have to remember to no eat it. Lol
@@l0I0I0I0 It’s absorbed rapidly through the skin. If you work round a plant that has selenides, your entire family knows it because you will be sweating it out for days after you leave. Gloves are a very good idea.
Yeah, Selenium is pretty toxic. Sulfur is not the greatest element to have around either.
@@silverc4s146That's a ridiculous thing to say. You know something which is pretty toxic to "have around"? Iron. Also, copper, and basically all the metals in the periodic table, as they all can induce acute toxicity in living organisms quite easily. Yet we have iron and copper around us all over the place, and you know why? Because as long as we don't grind the stuff into a fine powder and ingest it it's completely harmless to us.
Batteries containing selenium and sulfur would have zero toxicity issues with regards to humans, because you know, it's all sealed away inside the battery. So, safe. No worries. Stop the hysterical misinformation please.
Sam, I’m a massive fan, but am totally bewildered by your pronunciation of NASA! Dude! I know I’m being pedantic. Love your work mate. 😊
Earth to Eli. Pronunciations vary across continents. Ever heard a Brit pronounce Aluminum?
@@JeffMathias Yeah - I'm Australian too pal. I know how Australians pronounce NASA, and it's not like that. Relax would you Jeff?
No mention of all the Universities and Toyota that are involved, also old news
"By YURI KAGEYAMA AP Business Writer
April 8, 2022, 8:59 PM
TOKYO -- Nissan is working with NASA on a new type of battery for electric vehicles that promises to charge quicker and be lighter yet safe, the Japanese automaker said Friday."
Thanks mate. Awesome info
Any time!
All these people talking bad about electric vehicles will be dropping their jaws once this goes into production.
NASA, give Elon manufacturing rights, & make an affordable 'people's car' to win over the Coal Rollers & Fudsters, but whatever happens don't give it to GM!!! LOL
A 40% lighter battery + double the charge + teslas radical weight reduction engineering? Exciting times.
Thanx a lot man! Hope cars will soon see this tech "under the hood"
As a NASA employee, I would ask you this question. How is the Australian space program going??
Lesson I learned from Elon Musk: making a prototype is easy... getting that prototype into productions is VERY HARD!
Solid state has been around for a while now and this report has highlighted all the advantages of this new tech BUT how expensive is it and how hard is it to manufacture? No matter how great it works in the lab, if NASA can't mass produce these batteries, they're NOT going to change anything!
You are right. A new product like this comes from laboratory engineers to get it into production you need production engineers.
Which are made up of planning and methods engineers A completely different types of engineers to make it cost-effective.
So much on NASA criticism ,little on the science!!!
Sam, after seeing the many comments on 'believe when I see it', perhaps you could give some follow up on the likely hood of any of the myriad of new technologies that might actually make it to market. We all know that in the global maneuvering ,to be the 'BIG' player, companies will squash and keep technologies from coming to market. Your thoughts on a true switch to 'other' energy systems, replacing 'BIG'
oil would be of great interest !
The way you pronounce Nasa really grates on me. Besides that, good work.... (btw, it's pronounced NAH-suh [not Narrrrsa]).
I hope you're right about this, Skippy.
I'll start taking these revolutionary game changer battery techs when its able to be mass produced.
Seeing is believing.
Sam - let us know when this battery is in production and can be ordered - otherwise it is a mirage or phantomware and of no real value.
As a chemist, I synthesized some amazing polymers with incredible properties but they never made it out of the lab.
These could lead to practical 1 man drones similar to the jetson one
Taking off is the main reason the battery has to be able to discharge at such high rates. I wonder if a ground assist would be useful. Something like they have on an air craft carrier. The climb rate could be adjusted to the power capacity of the battery and cruising would use even less power. The main consideration would then be the energy capacity of the battery, and less, how fast it could discharge its energy. Also range would be increased by not using so much energy to take off.
I have no plans to sit on a self sustainable fire which rules out one chemistry immediately. I continue to wait for solid state. Too bad that all of Tesla's battery plant will become a white elephant when they decide they need to roll solids. Good ol' pouches, phones, laptops have always been the masters at saving weight. Go NASA, or all the rest experimenting with sulphur.
What's this NAASA or NAHSA organization you keep mentioning? Is it related to NASA?
But I thought MULN was going to be the ones who released the solid state battery
Think you are being a little harsh on NASA. They have always been a driving force for research into air and space flight, just sometimes they choose the wrong people. But mostly they are on the right track, as shown by this example of their desire to move us forward.
Everything comes down to production cost and cycle life. If these won't compete, it's dead in the water.
If this battery technology proves to be as described everything will change. I hope to see it come to fruition in my lifetime.
400 watts or 400 watt hours ? There is a huge difference !
Sam, NASA is an acronym and is pronounced 'NASSA' not NAASA. It makes me twitch every time you say it. I'm Australian, we don't say NAASA.
You are leaving out one important item - Cost. Can it produced at a reasonable cost and be recycled?
Sorry Sam Evans it's unlikely any solid state battery will be good enough or as good as ammonia or hydrogen fuel which are also just barely hood enough for long range large commercial transports. I am an aeronautical engineer with 20 years experience in the aviation industry. The Breguet range equation (battery electric aircraft version) offers an easy way to calculate the potential range with a few simple parameters. I have calculated what it is for various battery technologies and they are vastly insufficient for long-range commercial transports but for short-range commuters there is some potential and they could have very low operating costs.
Here are the estimates for far out battery technologies.
500 Wh/kg yields 1900 km range* SABERS
1200 Wh/kg yields 4600 km range* SABERS
2600 Wh/kg yields 10000 km range* Li-S
* With my upper limit estimates for equation parameters L/D=22, ETA=0.95, Mbat/Moto=0.5
Ammonia or hydrogen fuel can easily match today's range with new more efficient airframes with the above parameters.
It will only change the world if it is scalable!
If you can’t produce billions of these cells, if it can’t be made extremely cheap, it will only power astronomically expensive projects, like NASA’s projects.
So is there a way to invest .
great news. Perhaps these game changers in battery technology will keep coming. It is exciting.
about 30-50% of NASA's budget is military. There is a lot of "leakage" with military and government projects budget.
Doesn't say it's twenty times more expensive.
omegad , more breakthroughs !!!! Hurray, more vaporware especially from Never. A. Straight. Answer........ Let's partey !!
5x more capacity would be great so I could just standard accelerate everywhere I go and not worry about range loss
When matters
Sam, it’s Nassa.
I just read an article that said NASA has got another 5 years of lab testing so don’t expect it this decade.
we move forward through try and fails......and eventually we perfect.
I won't hold my breath waiting for this battery to go into productions, but when it is available then it will also mean that a proper 4wd Ute will be viable. Yesss
Cobalt and Nickel are not Rare Earth materials. Rare Earths belong to the Lanthanide and Actinide series of the Periodic Table. Neodymium is one commonly found example of a Rare Earth element. Ironically, most of them are not as rare as other commonly used elements, such as Selenium, Silver, Iodine, Cadmium and Mercury.
May, if, cautious words but one hopes and waits.
This is why NASA does best new technology and new ideas. Space x is using other's ideas via white paper and older tech. Almost nothing Space X has done is innovated.
Toyota’s solid state batteries will be a game changer in 2025. 👍 Lithium batteries are the Nokia phone equivalent. Or is it all vapour ware? 🤔
A lot of people might mock or complain about NASA but there are a lot of things that have come from the exploration of space the have benefited humans.
NASA has developed a lot of good tech over the years. It doesn't however have any incentive to commercialize this tech. The best approach with NASA is to periodically cut its budget drastically, forcing the engineers who have this great tech to take it out of the lab and to the market.
NASA does not do any development itself. That is done by contractors, commercial companies such as Panasonic or CATL, or university researchers.
We choose to pursue a better future, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
You say that a battery has a high energy capacity of 400 Watts/kg, but the Watt is not a measure of energy, it is measure of power. It's all very well saying a battery is 400 Watt, which usually means its maximum power, but what matters more is how long it can sustain that power. You need to quote the battery's ENERGY capacity. This is usually measured in kiloWatt hours (kWh). I would have expected you to know better🤔
Like others: Paint me as skeptical. I looked at a couple of articles about the NASA announcement and what is not discussed is just as telling as what is discussed.
- No mention of cycle life. If the battery can only be cycled a few hundred times it will have a very limited set of applications.
- Production processes. If the production process is not scalable, it is not a breakthrough in anything but a scientific novelty. In addition, if the production process is radically different than existing battery production, it will be difficult to get the volume ramped up enough to be significant.
A lot of companies and researchers have announced their breakthroughs in Solid State batteries, but issues like these are the hurdles that have kept them from being 'real'
Yes, the energy density and safety is impressive, but what are the economics of making them at scale? If this is just new chemistry that can mostly be inserted into existing production facilities and the materials are cheap enough, then it's a game changer. However, these are big ifs.
NASA doesn't normally trouble itself with how much things cost or how hard they are to make. Specification is key for them, not the economics of the product.
NASA uses the acronym SABERS (solid state architecture batteries for enhanced rechargeability and safety); NASA applies 'holey graphene' material and sulphur-selenium material. I assume that the performance of this battery is comparable with GMG's state-of-the-art Aluminum graphene battery (thumbs up Australia!), that does not even depend on Lithium. Australia has big reserves of Bauxite. Industry is going to upscale the production of graphene materials, no doubt about that. I hope the best 'graphene material' inventions/discoveries will be licensed to the battery industry. Very interesting calculation about the 'minimal' energy/weight (KWh/Kg) and power/weight (Watt/Kg) battery requirements for economic air travel by means of electric airplanes.
"bauxite" I don't think the global battery demand is enough to put pressure on aluminium mines, yet.
@@MattOGormanSmith That is why GMG's aluminum graphene battery is gold.
Jam tomorrow! Let's see prototypes circulated to 3rd-party users (car manufacturers, etc.) and get their feedback before we get into what your own words called "NASA's dream". Great to hear of new (actual) stuff but dreams...?
This news is too good 😀 very difficult to believe
The issue with NASA is that it's funding is dependent on the government, so it has to make "bulletproof" projects that can survive regime changes, thus inefficient.