Do you think lithium-sulfur batteries will become one of the go to energy storage technologies? Visit brilliant.org/undecided to sign up for free. And also, the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium membership. If you liked this, check out Why This Hydrogen Breakthrough Matters: ruclips.net/video/m0d6iljzzEI/видео.html
While anything to reduce the overall cost of creating energy storage is a good idea, we are still kind of focusing on the wrong thing by putting all our cards into just cars and batteries. While this is definitely a massive discovery, we need to update our overall infrastructure not just from an EV standpoint, but from the perspective of everyday living. This means revamping how cities are built and how people get around in general.
A surprising amount of inventions was just some screw up or a guy screwing around....Fire from sticks probably happened because a Caveman got bored and rubbed some sticks together. Hopefully its fast charging too.
The lithium-sulphur battery will hopefully be a important temporary step before *sodium*-sulphur battery that will be true revolution. The thing is that sodium-sulphur batteries might be *too* cheap, that the industry might prefer to make money on more expensive batteries. Lithium price will drop to nothing when sodium batteries arrives and people have invested a lot of money in Lithium. Sodium should outcompete lithium in the long run, but new technology comes with cost challenges as always.
If they can develop the tech to be as durable as Li-ion in real world use, then i can see it overtaking the current generation of Li-ion batteries. Thing is though, better batteries wont enable mass electrification of everything until we upgrade the power grids to handle the demand.
Idea for an episode. A bi-annual update on all the "Battery Breakthroughs" and where they are in their development process. Seems like theres a breakthrough every other month but we don't often hear much after that. It gives the impression the breakthroughs have gone nowhere when it's really just a long development process/obstacles to mass production and it gets people like me cranky whenever we see the words "Battery Breakthrough".
Same here. Although we haven't seen a new battery mass production breakthrough, I too would like to see a roundup of the progress of what's happening behind the scenes with all the different technologies. These things are incredibly hard problems to solve but I do want everyone competent enough researching all kinds of battery technologies in parallel. We WILL get a huge battery mass production breakthrough at some point because there's a huge demand to 1. electrify everything and 2. store the produced energy. I'd just like to track the progress in a convenient way.
A "Bi-Annual" 'Series' of Updates, of at least 5 Days, and 5 segments! To cover various Chemistry Advances, Production Advances, Mining Advances, Use Advances, etc!
"it's really just a long development process" Thats not the reason you never hear about these "Breakthough" again. Most technologies (not just battery technology) are only feasable in a laboratory in a controlled environment.
Call me skeptical. I've seen news of a new battery breakthrough about once a week for the last 10 years. And none of these have come to market. I think some of them are scams for investment money. I think some are actually lies by fossil fuel companies to delay their EV purchase by convincing customers that todays EVs will be obsolete next year, so people should wait. And others may actually be true but end up having some serious drawback that makes them inferior, such as cost, cycle life, temperature tolerances, etc. So, as always with these breakthroughs I just say "I'll believe it when I see it."
Absolutely!!! You hit the nail on the head. I used to be excited when the new battery technology comes forward but seeing the progress of this "new" technology, I'll only believe when it becomes commercial.
Ah, that's why this video is in my feed. I'm still a gasoline addict so I haven't really looked into EV's (Plus I don't think they make a Jeep Wrangler EV yet.) The way gas prices are going though I might be looking into this further.
Really appreciate the interview segments, I know it’s not easy arranging expert interviews, it does round out the whole video. Thoroughly enjoyed this one! 👍
@@siddharthiyer7244 It certain did take away value, since it's hard to impossible to understand what she's saying. Some of the words are literally incomprehensible.
@@jursamaj ~ Her bits didn't add value either and it's too bad because I was interested to hear what she has to say on this. His fast vid clips cut off a bit at the end of some of his sentences. Look at Scotty Kilmer, an experienced video artist, to see how the fast clips are done; entertaining as well as informative.
As much as I like to listen to battery breakthroughs, I'm not sure I've ever heard from any of them again after a while. I get that this kind of stuff takes years to just leave the lab and then even more years to go into mass production for consumer products... but pretty much everything cool I heard from was never spoken of again, even in such a long timeframe.
Well, there are a few things to keep in mind: 1. most improvements on the battery side are so minor that you dont recognise it 2. most breakthroughs are completely accidental
Years ago I heard about using lasers instead of spark plugs in cars to burn all of the petrol cleanly, thus making conventional internal combustion engines much greener and vastly more efficient overnight. That was the theory, anyway, never heard from it again. You'd think fossil fuel companies would have been all over it. But I guess car companies didn't like something that could vastly improve old cars (and thus not force people to buy new ones) with a bit of spannering.
Given that I can recall how short of a time AA batteries ran my Walkman in the early 80’s, we’ve sure come a long way with battery technology, but I love that these new discoveries will lead to safer, more sustainable and longer lasting batteries with greater capacity.
I believe that ultimately the solution is not in chemical batteries, rather in Super-Capacitors (solid state/graphene based) which pick up the charge electrostatically, having several advantages over current battery technologies: 1. There's no chemicals/reactions to degrade over the time. 2. It charges extremely fast, within minutes to a full charge. 3. It has a high power density in a lightweight package, but energy density is relatively low which needs improvement. There are several companies exploring this technology, here's some videos: ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=super+capacitors
I know you mentioned it a little but there should have been a bigger focus on just how much lighter these batteries would be compared to lithium-Ion batteries. They are in the order of 1/3rd the weight of existing batteries. That is the reason the drone and aerospace industry is what they are aiming at. Also, lithium will largely be a solved problem in the next 5 years. The Salton Sea production of Lithium is coming online. They will literally 1.5x the amount of lithium on the market over the next 10 years.
Hmmm. But to continue the transition to EV's you need 50 times the lithium on the market over the next 10 years. And that ignores the needs for roof top and grid scale storage for PV. So I wouldn't say that it is a solved problem.
I second the motion for talking more about the properties of the chemistry. While 2x lithium ion is interesting, it still can't compete with LiFePo4 for cycle life and would be a barrier for mainstream EV use. What about operational temperature range? Charge/discharge rates? There would certainly be great applications for this tech, but there are still limitations as well.
I really hope we get a spread of useful battery chemistry out of this. I hate how heavily overinvested we are becoming on lithium to the point where grid storage, EVs and portable electronics are eating each other's supply chains to the detriment of all. Even having a straight up lesser option for things that don't need the best would alleviate the pressure at least.
Take a good look at the periodic table. Lithium is the lightest metal. Lithium is still the best hope for a stable battery material. But it is by no means tapped out in terms of improvements. We have a very long way to go in terms of electrolytes, anode materials, doping compounds etc. It is possible that in 30 years time lithium batteries will be unrecognizable and require far less lithium but be many times more energy dense. Supply chain issues are mostly a problem because most of the industry believed 15-20 years ago that EVs would never be popular and never have demand. So nobody invested heavily enough in mining and extracting at the critical juncture. Investment TODAY is 15 years too late and the knockon effects will be felt throughout the industry. 2035 fossil fuels bans are well intentioned, but they came too late for industries to catch up. The demand problem will be with us for a very long time.
Are you also annoyed at how "heavily overinvested" we are in iron? Lithium has chemical properties that no other element has because if they did, then they'd be lithium.
Only about 7% of a lithium battery is lithium. And nickel is likely to be the first metal we truly run short on for batteries. Copper isn't far behind nickel. And copper is extremely important in a LOT more ways than lithium is. Making, transporting, and using basically All electricity, for example. Lithium might get all the buzz, but there's a few "regular" metals more important than lithium is, when it comes to actually manufacturing a lithium battery.
Sodium-Sulphur would be amazing for grid scale storage, especially when their manufacture can be linked to desalination plants to supply fresh water. Perhaps something for those Middle Eastern desalination plants to feed, especially in a post oil era.
I think Hydrogen electrolysis plants would work better for long-term storage. Imagine having a solar farm hooked up to a local energy grid in any dry desert-like place (central US, Middle East, North Africa, Mongolia, Australia, Southern Europe, etc). All surpluss energy would generate power for water electrolysis to separate hydrogen molecules from oxygen and store the hydrogen long term as a fuel source when needed. Until recently the main issue was producing electrolysis cells large enough to make this concept quantifiable and grid-level worthy, but a recent breakthrough this year by a Danish phd student has flipped this completely and shortened this option with almost a decade (so that it is possible to implement within the next 5 years or so). At the very least, a combination of hydrogen and sodium-sulphur batteries for storage would be great. The sulphur based batteries would likely present a better option for adaptive implementation if surplus energy storage is needed in a specific location for a duration of time until more permanent systems can be installed.
@@Real_MisterSir hydrogen electrolysis is a surprisingly inefficient cycle and depends on the availability of water. But solid state Sodium-Sulphur batteries can be moved anywhere, require no maintenance and supply electricity on demand.
@@Real_MisterSir hydrogen storage and transport isn't like working with natural gas. It's leaks out of everything unless you take care to really maintain tightly specd equipment
This was really an impressive installment of your series, Matt. Your engagement of the Drexel team's scientist, Dr Vibha Kalra, really helped to make me understand the importance of this breakthrough. I would be intrigued by follow-up programs about the sulphur-sodium battery idea. Thank you!
Sulphur-sodium would be so much better than lithium and cobalt, i dont see why they aren't heard about and considered more often
2 года назад+1
that'll be a real game changer for EVs cheaper, way smaller eco footprint - sulfur & sodium are abundant. But until such battries hit the market the "Toyota style plugins" (RAV prime, NX 450h+) are much better than pure EVs
I recall reading an article in 2016 about a discovery [by accident] that using a gel instead of liquid in Li-Ion battery increased the cycle life from 2k-8k range to well past 100k. Further testing needed to be done to see how feasible it was in the real world. Haven't heard a peep since. Now with this sulfur option, it doesn't render the other solution obsolete, but the higher energy density certainly gives an advantage. Application purpose would be the driver of which technology was chosen.
IIRC the problem with the Gel solution from back then was that the advantages broke down when the battery got hotter... and the degradation was permanent. So yes the longevity could be HUGE... but you had to NEVER let the battery get hot... Which is nearly fucking impossible because in almost every use case heat got produced just by use... or worse by environment.
there have been so many breakthrough innovations in the past two decades... some low tech some high tech but none have changed much in dealing with the problems next generations have to cope with ... I fear that EV will not be the solution... more human powered vehicles and more mass transit is the solution
Nomenclature! Everything you mentioned are all "lithium ion" batteries. What you're referring to as "lithium ion" are actually NCMA chemistries, which use various combinations of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum in their matrix.
So cool to hear the last author on the paper talk about the research. This seems pretty awesome. Also just a minor thing, a 700% increase is actually an eight fold increase, not seven fold.
No you can't count the original energy density as an increase. 700% is just that. 7 times the base energy density. You don't count the current density as a value increase.
I generally skip the almost daily "battery breakthrough" videos, but knew from past experience I could expect some grounded and accurate information here...Thanks Matt! Sure hope this process is able to be scaled up to produce low cost high performance batteries. Sounds great, and five or six years is not too long to have an impact on EV adoption.
6 years to what? Achieve what the market is offering? What will be that product after 6 year, current product will be surely more affordable and specs will probably double or triple before that "breakthrough" hit the market.
there have been so many breakthrough innovations in the past two decades... some low tech some high tech but none have changed much in dealing with the problems next generations have to cope with ... I fear that EV will not be the solution... more human powered vehicles and more mass transit is the solution
I agree a lot of people want to be the first so they will come out and say we found it so they can get a money injection.. all so the voltage out of them is only 2~2.5v, 3.7 for standard lithium battery's so you need more battery's cells. and what about the lithium its self that is some thing that is getting stretchered out too
I believe it, but there is a huge step in between proof of concept to full blown production/application to the world. I really would love to believe in 5 years I could be buying these though....
@@jtelliso also there are many use cases for these batteries where they would be used instead of lithium ion even if they cost 5 times more, phones and other portable devices being such because of the limited capacity
Dr. Vibha Kalra's doing some awesome work, Lithium Sulphur batteries sound incredibly awesome 😃 GoodLuck! & thank you, Matt, for sharing this research with us🙏🏽
I am unsure why this is, but i always watch videos with closed captions (no i don’t have a hearing problem) and it’s intersting that the closed captions knew 2 times to correct what was being said . At 5:38 the closed captions importantly deciphers what the doctor is saying, she abbreviated something that a regular guy like me wouldn’t have know what she meant, but closed captions kept me fully informed. At 6:22 it added in the important “4,000” number for the amount of charge cycles they got out of their new design. I don’t know if you send a script into RUclips and that’s how they know what it was supposed to say or if the AI is that wildly smart or maybe YT has real people do the closed captioning 🤷♂️ Impressive nonetheless Great video and i am subscribing now bro
@@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman Eh, It doesn't mean they're fake in this context. All of these breakthroughs are mostly real in battery tech. The issue are 99% of the time there's just not a way to mass produce the battery for market at a leveled cost that makes it profitable. Often times there's not even a means to scale the production at all so it's just a dead end. The materials are very real, but the bigger problem that's always even harder is how to mass produce them.
The lithium sulfur battery technology looks promising. I hope that it can deliver better batteries without impacting the environment. It seems necessary to find altternatives to fossil fuels and a good battery could help.
Why? There is more green on the earth than possibly in a long time? Won't get into the science behind earth core temp etc. And it's effects by shade/trees. Co2 is a necessity for earth
Yeah, advancements in electronic technology has been increasing at a very high rate except batteries, their technology has been the same more or less since last 12 years. Recently, we have been seeing advancement through llithium polymer batteries and now this.
@@kylenolan2710 well they are kind of facts. Do your own research besides the global initiatives put forth by media. I'm not against renewable energy by the way.
I remember watching a documentary on batteries. From I recall at the time there 10 different type of batteries the scientists were working on. The crux was in the lab all ten worked perfectly, the issue became manufacturing it in the plant. They figured once that can be achieved these batteries will end up in the market place. They pointed out that it took 10 yrs to perfect the manufacturing of lithium ion batteries. It’ll take some doing it will happen
Thanks Matt; great video. I appreciate you adding the interview with Dr. Karla. Getting the first hand perspective on the research was very helpful. I also appreciate the time and effort you put into presenting a well balanced analysis of the subject matter. Keep up the good work! Looking forward to your series on the new house.
This is awesome. Well done guys. As an interesting side note I was involved in the early days of that Rio Tinto project in Serbia. That was way back in 2003. That’s how long these things take and even now it’s hitting issues!!!
Its better this than having Rio Tinto destroying ecosystem like they wish for goals of profit. There is laws and to be honest we all know Tinto is not without a stain concerning pollution or even respect of native or aboriginal land . There is laws because they have (mines) destroyed many things and leaving like theif. Profit, Profit, profit is all they have in mind
And I would invite people to read about Rio Tinto serbia . Out of the Tinto internet page and go into external sources who are not as biased as scientific working for Tinto and boosting or shrinking number so Tinto get the green light asap.
@@andrazlogar861 well sure when you have pollution even before it start and nothing growing around the well they used for testing no wonder why big protest went on . Rio and most of mining companies just dont give a dam about doing things the good way . There is always a ecologic disaster with theme. After they come up with tail between the legs to manipulate the people saying it wont happen again but guess what it happens every time . Just take tinto who destroyed a 45 000 yo aboriginal sacred site...as always...a few excuses when manifestations start and out they go keeping on going . Its like they are too stupid to think human do remember.
Scrolling through my feed, your video (thankfully) shows up, but somehow my brain saw the yellow powder and read, "Battery" as "Batter-y"....like it was cake mix. Delicious, fluffy, batter-y goodness breakthrough. I don't know wtf is wrong with me this morning.
A couple of things to consider about battery development: Speaking as a renewable energy professional, former EV builder, and long time battery geek, I have observed that if you want to know if a battery will last ten years, it takes…ten years. Ten years using the batteries twenty different ways. Chemistries that work well in the lab don’t necessarily work well at high discharge rates, with thermal cycling, or with the vibration and jolts of vehicular use. Reducing size and weight has consequences. No battery is 100% efficient and the heat of charging and discharging has to go somewhere. The more energy you pack in a small space the harder it is to get the waste heat energy out. Less surface area per volume. The less mass, the less to transmit that heat to the surface of the battery. There’s a limit, even with active cooling, to how energy dense you can make a battery. At some point you have to space cells to make it artificially less dense. I blame sci-fi for the dilithium crystal fallacy: we’ll extract a city’s worth of power out of this thing the size of a baseball without it glowing white hot and exploding. No problem.
Most applications are more concerned about weight than volume, so maybe layouts using materials with higher specific energy could trade some volume for cooling? I mean, if your EV is already designed for a battery of a certain volume, then if you have cells with 3 times the specific energy, you could space them out in the volume you have and get more cooling that way.
@@dalegreer3095 True! Car makers have figured out how to incorporate the volume of present technology batteries into a sedan, so any volume bonus can go to cooling.
I really love your channel and appreciate the well researched, medium-deep analysis and future outlook comments on new technologies. You do an outstanding job. I would LOVE to see a graphical "map" of the various energy storage schemes comparing their efficiency, energy density, expected development and likely market launch times and maybe a few other factors illustrated. I think it would be fantastic and super-interesting to see these compared to Li-ion and even to update the graph every year and watch as some techs really take off or appear out of nowhere while other dwindle and disappear. Really fascinating stuff!
I'm pretty excited about what this means for the future of small mobile robots - batteries have always been one of the main limiting factors on weight and cost. The better safety sounds good too.
Matt: I appreciate your tendency to step back and research the broader scope of a market or technology to nest the specific point of interest in the greater context... as you did by bringing in Lyten to this discussion.
I think what also has to be taken into account when you discuss new battery technologies is, wether it is possible to recycle the system or if its composites are so connected, that they create a hot mess of material that cannot be broken down back to its constituents. A battery, that cannot be recycled after its use is a worthless battery.
You have disposable batteries that are not being recycled so whats the difference. If the rechargeable batteries last a long time it should not matter that much.
@@sargonoshana2324 Well of course I have to worry a lot. Everything, that is not recyclable creates waste that piles up and is lost for future generations to create new things. No matter what the lifetime of a battery is, as long as it is finite, it will pile up and deplete the resources for generations to come. This holds true for everything we make.
Great video Matt. The tech sounds promising but we'll just have to wait. Sometimes I feel numb from all the "New Battery Tech Solves EVERYTHING" announcements. Seems like a better mousetrap is invented every day but then crickets. Still waiting for 2025 because all the worlds problems will be solved in that year according to all the announcements recently LOL. Keep up the good work.
This is because a new battery technology doesn't just have to be better; it has to be _so much better_ that it beats out the economies of scale already in place for lithium-ion batteries.
I didn't even have to wait beyond the intro to answer the question. As soon as you said "it may be the holy grail of power storage" THAT automatically guaranteed that it will always be about ten years away.
I believe that variety in battery tech will be the most important factor in whether the world can move towards non-combustibles. Civilisation consumes energy in every form and every size...so having multiple techs allows manufacturers to adjust for where it's needed. For power, the main problem with renewables is storage. Better battery tech will allow renewables to ride out dips and peaks, and also provide a buffer for when demand spikes. I don't believe we'll be able to 100% convert to renewables in the next 20 years, but we might be able to do something like an 80-20 split instead. Coal/Oil plants will provide a stable output to maximise their efficiency, while renewables handle the rest.
I love your channel. Seriously, it is like those Popular Science Magazines that I used to read as a child. I feel bad because I know that A LOT of the stuff you bring up isn't going to happen in my lifetime (hopefully another 40 years left). I feel that sense of false of hope that I felt in the early 2000's when none of that stuff came true from those Popular Science Magazines I read in the early 1990's. Keep up the great work, but maybe I should work my expectations again.
I think technology is advancing exponentially. Every five years we see something very interesting. I think battery and solar technology will make a huge jump forward in the next 3-5 years.
@@TexanUSMC8089 I don't. I remember reading about people being on Mars by 2000, then 2010, then 2020. Unless we have a massive breakthrough with another element, I don't see it happening.
Honestly I just want a battery tech that doesn't degrade as badly as lithium ion for the consumer market now, heard so many miracle materials/technique/compound in the 2010s but lithium ion is still here as the most common battery in a lot of applications.
Yes battery tech is in reality is way too slow in progressing, & it is NOT getting cheaper, EV's are just getting more expensive. If EV's are to widely adopted, the price has to go down, not UP UP UP.
@@sevencostanza3931 BS! Prices are going down. You can buy Ford Maverick for $20K and we have double digits inflation. Thanks to stupid administration, but that what majority wanted.
ithium phosphate has been taking over generators for having a longer life cycle and not exploding when punctured. but its heavier so its not in phones or drones yet
I mean why would manufacturers voluntarily invest in a longer lasting product? If you have to buy a new one just because the battery dies, that's perfect for them.
What I want to know about these cells, are what are the nominal, fully charged, and discharged voltages on a single cell and what the amperage output would be like (example, a single cell of 1000mah capacity)
The voltage should be probably/hopefully also around 4.2V. I mean It is still using lithium. The thing about all of these "Battery Breakthrough" that we are hearing every month is that the majority of them (100% until now) are only feasable in the laboratory.
You have to distinct between stationary and mobile power storage. For stationary power storage energy density not a issue. It just do not matter how heavy your batteries are. So if your batteries are twice as heavy and cost only half as mutch thats good. For mobile application it is the other way around.
Well spoken and communicated info. Thanks. Just a few years back our auto mechanic(life-long) said electric cars would never make it due to battery issues. Ha… I’m betting on these new battery technologies… TMI to follow: : ) I grew up with an oil burner car(worn out 6 volt 52 Chevy that guzzled $.43/qt. bulk oil with its Ethyl gasoline)… dang, that was a lot of unnecessary pollution. ✌🏼🐸
My vote is for graphene batteries if we can develop the technology to produce it cheaply on a mass scale. It is way superior to lithium in terms of being much better for the environment, wide availability, and producing a much more powerful lighter efficient battery.
As a Rule, they Never come to market. The exceptional case is a minimum 10 years. There are some companies look to speed up that process, at least for LFP battery improvements.
usually this is true. but in this case it is more of an overhaul that can be put on existing battery plants. imagine Tesla creating 2 types of batteries using different source materials on more or less the "same" productionline. which is huge. all that remains to be seen though. but at least there is hope in this case
@@patreekotime4578 I think they're referring to the joke that no matter how great the breakthrough is, it's always 10 years _from today_ for any given innovation (I.e., a rolling wave of 10-years-out-things-that-will-never-come-out). Just like full self driving (saying this cheekily as an ML researcher. ;))
@@fernbear3950 But full self driving did come out already... You never heard of the Tesla FSD controversy of 2018? People were using self-driving on residential, unlined streets, and still are today.
Matt, hi from Germany. A company, Theion, in Berlin, Germany is mass-producing this batteries already. Hopefully we can use this batteries for homes and cars in the not so far future. Otherwise, great job with your videos. As they say, Keep up the good work. German Greetings. Oh, and stay safe and healthy.
I always get a chuckle when hearing about the history of various chemical discoveries. A huge number of them "And I accidentally discovered..." in there somewhere.
It's interesting for sure although I would like to see a comparison with Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries , charge/discharge cycles are about 10 times better than Lithium Ion but it does sacrifice weight and some power density in it's early lifetime but surpasses it within a hundred cycles or so .
They last far more than just a few extra hundred cycles. LFP batteries last from over 3x to 10x than typical Lithium Ion (3,000-10,000 cycles), and they do not have Nickle or Cobalt. Many new Tesla Model 3's use LFP batteries, especially in China Edit; Did some more research lol About half of the new Model 3's come with LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate), and are 9% heavier 😅 The 3k-10k cycles can be seen as exaggerated as the capacity is lower and will have to go though more charges for the equal range of Lithium-Ion. If you go with 2/3's energy density, that still means 2x-5x mileage life. They seem to have more stable chemistry, theoretically better charge rates without degrading (recommend 100% charge BTW) but limited to 170Kw 😅 So, if you don't mind hitting the charger a litter more (267 EPA range, with 250+ observed in tests going 65 vs 358 EPA on the Lithium-Ion long range Model 3) you can charge 100% without worrying about degrading the batteries and can run them down then all the way back up also without degrading any much faster. And it's half a second faster than the alternative Standard Range with Lithium-Ion. Side note; the Lithium Ion does recommend 80% charge for daily use reducing range by 20% giving you just over 210 miles BUT the batteries also degrade more when going under 20% if i'm not wrong. But with current pricing it's "only" 6K more for the long range with AWD and better speaker system which is considered one of the best in any car made 😍
Keep in mind there are some heavy duty applications, such as railroad locomotives, where additional weight could really be an asset, since weight directly translates to tractive effort.
@@MrHeHim heh I didn't say they didn't last far more cycles in total use , what I said was this , The power density (the amount of power per pound) of a LiFePh4 battery is lower than lithium ion only for a short period of time in other words due to the degradation of the power density of a lithium ion versus LiFePh4 has the power density graph cross after a couple hundred cycles or in other words LiFePh4 has a higher power density after only a couple hundred cycles . Personally if I bought an electric car I would want the LiFePh4 batteries for several reason . My battery backup systems I use camping and etc. are all LiFePh4 .
My guess is that raw material shortages might play a role in the choice of future battery technology. Exchanging Lithium based technology with Sodium, at least for stationary grid energy storage, would be part of the solution.
I'd be interested to know the efficiency of the batteries they have been testing. The lifespan and energy density advantages sound great but the efficiency is also hugely important.
Depends on the usage... as I understand half the initial cost of a good green energy power plant is now sunk into the batteries. So the full plant could end up being 66% cost of the orginal. At that point you just build 3 solar plant for the price of 2 and you don't mind the efficiency.
@@hurktang that's a fair point but only if the efficiency is within an expected range. If the efficiency is low enough then scaling up the input could a become uneconomical. But, just like you, I imagine this is not the case. I was thinking more in terms of the car/drone usage. If it becomes the standard battery for all EVs then the efficiency becomes important. When you scale up the usage, the losses could really mount up. And if this kind of battery is used to store energy multiple times after being generated then it gets worse still (i.e. wind turbine > on site battery > grid > ev battery). That said, if the efficiency is higher than current batteries then we are definitely onto a winner! 😁 Also, now I think about it, I wonder about charge times too 🤔 we definitely need another video on this! *Hint hint
here in the Phoenician valley AZ the high today is 108F (47c)... and it's not the peak of summer yet... soooo.... yeah, those alt. electrolytes are a no-go...
Just for a general note; most any laboratory discovery across any discipline is assumed to take about 5 to 6 years to reach the consumer (after they start - Dr. Kalra didn't seem to imply they were ready; though, that could just be reasonable caution as one would want and expect from a well rounded Scientist). Five to six years is the bell curve average if related industrial processes either already exist or can be easily adapted to the new discovery's requirements. But, the time is longer when it would involve a completely new industrial process (new machinery and scale testing stretch cost and efforts out) or the time is shorter if existing machinery and processes already work with it. Like where a small chemistry change to an existing battery could take only months to implement. It's a good set of rules for looking at ROI over time if investing in startups or companies who are trying to use something just out of a lab. It doesn't make for a bad investment if completely new industrial processes are necessary, but 5 to 6 can turn into 9 to 10 years with increased risk for the investment if another discovery in the field gets there faster with similar benefits.
It is interesting to me that in the pursuit of protecting the environment, we still must dig into the earth and strip mine for "environmentally friendly" resource. While we hear so much about the horrendous effect of our use of coal and oil, we have heard very little regarding our strip mining digs into the earth for nickel and cobalt and just as little regarding the hazardous waste that the thousands of billions of batteries create. It is nice to hear that sodium is a far more willing resource to produce. I suspect that there would be a trillion-dollar industry for scientists and engineers who could discover how to recycle these products.
Thanks Matt for your focus on energy storage technology. I'm writing to suggest you consider a relatively new technology for energy storage, that is green ammonia. Ammonia is essentially a way to store hydrogen using lower technology than that needed for gaseous H2. The infrastructure already exists for storage and transport of liquid ammonia, and it is suitable for transportation because it can be used in diesel engines (with some tweaking) with an energy density more than half of diesel fuel. Recent scientific articles and a test project in Australia have demonstrated an N2-H2O fuel cell and improved ways of generating ammonia from unused electricity. I hope you can consider checking this out and presenting it sometime to your (considerable!) audience.
This is super exciting stuff. Just put in an order for an Aptera... just imagining being able to have the 1000 mile range battery option, yet have the pack weigh half of what the 250 mile does! Amazing!
You know, the thing with all these developments and that they are always touted as 'cheaper this, cheaper that', but the consumer just never sees anything of that. Things just get more expensive with manufacturers and/or lawmakers coming up with a plethora of reasons to keep prices high. New battery tech is nice, but I don't believe for one second that this new battery, or hydrogen, or anything else, will actually result in more buying power for the average consumer.
That's almost always a manufacturer decision, not a lawmaker one. But you're right. There's no market reason for them to lower prices when they can just increase their profit margin.
@@MindForgedManacle I guess that the impact of law makers is more country-specific than manufacturer decision making but where I live, for example, so many things are illegal. Want to save on fuel and get a small electric scooter for grocery shopping? You can't because forbidden to ride on public roads? Want to electrify your internal combustion car? Not allowed without a lot of time consuming and expensive checks and authorisations, etc. Ultimately, I think lawmakers have more power over pricing than manufacturers do because they can limit what a product should cost.
@@MindForgedManacle It becomes a lawmaker one when they enact such restrictive regulations that the manufacturers can't operate at a profit. For example, Smithfield (pork processing) is shutting down their operation in Kalifornia due to regulations and cost of operation. This is also going to impact their operations in Utah and Arizona, costing jobs.
Great video. Why though use metric with imperial units in brackets and then all of a sudden use gallons and omit litres? ... Not only that, but why use gallons per tonne, i.e. imperial unit per metric unit?
Agreed about the inconsistency. Regarding tonnes when spelled that way, that is indeed metric, but on the screen he spelled it ton. In the U.S. we have an imperial ton that is 2,000 avoirdupois pounds or 907.18474 kg. Here when we speak of a ton outside of a scientific or technical context, that is the ton that's understood unless we specify the term "metric tonne". In writing, if we see just "tonne" it is normal to assume that metric is referenced, because "tonne" is a traditionally British/UK spelling of the word. 20 years ago in U.S. writing, i never ever saw the spelling "tonne" alone without the word "metric" in front, because there was deemed too much possibility for confusion. After all, the words tonne and ton are technically the same word, just using British vs. American spelling conventions. Today, however, i'm seeing many more cases of just "tonne" than i am of "metric tonne", which i suppose reflects that younger generations in the U.S. are unlikely to even consider the possibility of using an imperial ton in technical writing. I suspect it's now being taught that in technical usage it is a serious error to quote imperial tons for any purpose, even as a translation. Though that was not entirely the case when i was in university in the 80s. However, in public communications, the spelling "ton" is still commonplace and is widely understood to refer to the imperial ton.
@@no_rubbernecking Wow, I had no idea about the ton / tonne difference (not only that, but after some googling I now learnt that there is a "short ton" and "long ton", with both tons expressing different weights of course...). Funnily enough, this shows the need for consistency as this means that I would have confused one of the units used, therefore arriving to a wrong conclusion solely based on unit confusion. … Imperial units strike again.
I am an experimental human longevity researcher. I'm not telling you the exact biological pathways as to why and how, but Sulphur and Sulphide deficiency, and their transporters, plays a huge role in ageing, and many of the frailty issues involved in ageing. The reason is a lot like why we get dysfunction in batteries, and is prevented and regulated by NQO1, the equivalent of a cellular carburettor. Maybe I should try to hack what I know about the human body into a hybrid biological battery. I've already found ways to regulate NQO1 in such a fashion that it extremely slows, sometimes even freezes ageing, via modulation of redox reactions and cellular access to NAD+. It can cause most cancers to self-destruct, by undermining their access to NAD+, in the process. This video actually gave me an idea how one would go about it. What is going wrong in the batteries is the same as the buildup of advanced glycation end products in human ageing, and certain non mutation based cancers.
It sound great, but everytime there is some news about a breakthrough of some kind, then that breakthrough isn't heard from again in a long time. I hope that this can actually be used and not forgotten in a few months
World needs a battery breakthrough but hasn't seen one since Lithion-ion in the late eighties. It has seen countless breakthrough announcements though, usually just a few years and a lot of funding removed from commercialisation....
While I love these technology break throughs, I wonder how these breakthrough would affect recycling of current batteries? A new chemistry that doesn't use any of the materials in the current battery and can be made cheaper due to the abundance of raw materials (Sodium and Sulphur) should reduce the economic viability of recycling. Would it still be recycled or is it another E-Waste problem in the making?
You WAY undersold how easy sulphur is to obtain. Almost all Canadian Oil and Gas, the cleanest and most ethical on the planet, has sulphur in it due to it being ‘sour’ or having H2S compounds in it. We literally have to pull the sulphur out and through it away. Alberta could become the next battery manufacturing hub with this news. We have both Lithium salts and sulphur in our O&G.
I love how some people promote Battery powered cars as solution to pollution but are silent on the mass contamination of the extraction/production/disposal of the batteries. It's the old story, as long as the contamination does not happen in my backyard, I don't care. If I don't know about it, it doesn't happen.
Wacky! I love how batteries can be improved by near-infinite combinations of elements, as well as HOW those elements are processed. 'Vapor deposition made it better, but we don't know how or why.' I love it.
Another wonderful magic battery technology... yet for the past however many decades the battery technology world has been slowly evolving. And every few months a new wonderful technology is announced, yet none of them move to large scale production to move the needle in any significant way. So I am sorry to be skeptical but till this actually shows up on shelves this is a fun trick in the lab but nothing else than that.
@@mathieuprevot8753 yes it was and many many years later it was just a bit better than the competing technology already being mass produced This is exactly the issue with these "wonder tech" stories. People seem to always conveniently leave out the many years it takes to move from a lab fluke to a production line. By the time mass production of the wonder material finally begins the rest of the market is nearly as good as the new product making the end result evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
@@RobCoops Yes but every technology has a limit. When Lithium did hit the market, it kinda sucked, but now it's miles ahead of Nickel. It's always like that. First cars sucked, you were better off with a horse, but after a while it become better while horse's technology had reached a plateau.
Hmm.. 6 years.. 6 years to market might be short but I would imagine that it should be possible to create a prototype / proof of concept battery to have something to show for in months rather than years. If they truly jumped over the biggest hurdle in Li-S battery than I don't see any reason for not focusing all energy on producing a standard cell for demo purposes. You don't have to understand tech to use it. I get they are scientist and it's their job to understand things but business does not need that. It just needs a product that works. Show to business that a battery can be built and they will shower you with all the money necessary for funding research work needed for full understanding. Otherwise this tech might just never be viable for real-world use because somebody will get there sooner with a different solution and just take all the market to a different direction. Those things happened in the past. Build a demo battery ASAP.
@@thecocktailian2091 Actually, you don't have to understand absolutely everything about something to use it. We still don't understand how light in some ways acts like particles and in other ways like waves.
These things also happened in the past: - a tech we used but didn't understand fully - freons, - a tech we understood and used anyway despite the negative consequences - leaded gasoline.
As somebody doing his PhD on Li-S batteries, I am happy they get more coverage. Carbonate electrolytes redirected the research towards a solid-state conversion process (with an liquid electrolyte. So we are not talking here about full solid state batteries). But, we are still far away from commercial release. Full carbonate based system so not yet achieve the energy density of commercial li-ion batteries. (or in other words, a LIB powered car can still deive further than any car that would use carbonate based Li-S batteries. Also, for a new battery technology to succeed, it needs to integrate well in the current production scheme, since the production of LIB is highly optimized. If a company has to buiöd a new production process, it would take years before the prices are competitive (due to economies of scale). So, many challenges ahead, but we are working in it :)
Its so cool that not only is this a new technology, but it already has 2 separately researched methods that will compete commercially in the near future.
Battery technology hasn't had a true "revolutionary breakthrough" in the entire history of the storage battery. We have been blessed with many incremental bumps in storage density over many years. We're so close to being truly practical in Li-Ion and LiFEP04 cells. Just imagine how much a sudden 25% bump in charge density would change the world!
As someone who works in oil and gas this scares me and excites me at the same time. Anything close to a 2x density improvement would definitely accelerate the already exponential advancements in energy storage and utilization.
2 questions: 1] is the voltage per cell close to the cell voltage of li-ion? 2] would these require a similar "smart charger" like CC/CV? I'm always building things, just trying to see if I'll need to start learning new technology for these new batteries in the coming years.
I like the concept, but until I see this new technology hit the market I have to remain guarded. One Gentleman said he thought fossil fuel big wig were throwing us a curve ball, and I'm not convinced that he is wrong. The next couple of years will tell. If they come up with another battery that's supposed to be just as good or better I will still be guarded. This technology must come from outside sources, but big oil has a very long reach. Remember how Nikola Tesla did even make it into the history books. Well that's likely because of big oil and wall street. Oh please lord let something good finally happen with energy in this world! Thanks for a fantastic presentation!
Cobalt is used to reduce battery cell volatility. Iron based cells do not have this problem. They are a little less energy dense but can be used 0% to 100% without degradation. More dense LFPs would be low cost yet maintain their low environmental impact.
Sodium sulphide was actually touted as far back as the '70s as a much-lighter replacement for lead/acid in cars. At the time, it couldn't match the overall performance, hence we're currently still stuck with the old heavyweights. I'd always thought, tho, that the system had potential, and now - big thanks for this video - Cinderella may just be going to the ball. Really look forward to developments in the next few years.
I still remember NiCd and NiMh Batteries in RC being a thing, then came LiPo and Fe. If Lithium-Sulfur is another jump like that EVs and a backup storage for renewables might be within reach
Very exciting breakthrough on so many dimensions. Not quite the energy density of carbon based fuels, but this started me dreaming of an electric fan jet technology for commercial airlines.
The interview transforms this video from just being a regurgitation of some articles and/or scientific papers into an actual scientific report. Please do more of these sorts of interviews with actual scientists.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think lithium-sulfur batteries will become one of the go to energy storage technologies? Visit brilliant.org/undecided to sign up for free. And also, the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium membership.
If you liked this, check out Why This Hydrogen Breakthrough Matters: ruclips.net/video/m0d6iljzzEI/видео.html
While anything to reduce the overall cost of creating energy storage is a good idea, we are still kind of focusing on the wrong thing by putting all our cards into just cars and batteries.
While this is definitely a massive discovery, we need to update our overall infrastructure not just from an EV standpoint, but from the perspective of everyday living. This means revamping how cities are built and how people get around in general.
A surprising amount of inventions was just some screw up or a guy screwing around....Fire from sticks probably happened because a Caveman got bored and rubbed some sticks together. Hopefully its fast charging too.
The lithium-sulphur battery will hopefully be a important temporary step before *sodium*-sulphur battery that will be true revolution.
The thing is that sodium-sulphur batteries might be *too* cheap, that the industry might prefer to make money on more expensive batteries. Lithium price will drop to nothing when sodium batteries arrives and people have invested a lot of money in Lithium.
Sodium should outcompete lithium in the long run, but new technology comes with cost challenges as always.
If they can develop the tech to be as durable as Li-ion in real world use, then i can see it overtaking the current generation of Li-ion batteries. Thing is though, better batteries wont enable mass electrification of everything until we upgrade the power grids to handle the demand.
We have so much sulfur in Alberta we built pyramids out of them.
And since we are producing Lithium soon, I could see us becoming a Li-S Batt builder.
Idea for an episode. A bi-annual update on all the "Battery Breakthroughs" and where they are in their development process. Seems like theres a breakthrough every other month but we don't often hear much after that. It gives the impression the breakthroughs have gone nowhere when it's really just a long development process/obstacles to mass production and it gets people like me cranky whenever we see the words "Battery Breakthrough".
Same here. Although we haven't seen a new battery mass production breakthrough, I too would like to see a roundup of the progress of what's happening behind the scenes with all the different technologies. These things are incredibly hard problems to solve but I do want everyone competent enough researching all kinds of battery technologies in parallel. We WILL get a huge battery mass production breakthrough at some point because there's a huge demand to 1. electrify everything and 2. store the produced energy. I'd just like to track the progress in a convenient way.
Nah people would realize that his videos are only hyped up
A "Bi-Annual" 'Series' of Updates, of at least 5 Days, and 5 segments! To cover various Chemistry Advances, Production Advances, Mining Advances, Use Advances, etc!
I barely pay attention to new "revolutions, breakthroughs, etc." Well off to something else after only 1:50.
"it's really just a long development process" Thats not the reason you never hear about these "Breakthough" again. Most technologies (not just battery technology) are only feasable in a laboratory in a controlled environment.
Call me skeptical. I've seen news of a new battery breakthrough about once a week for the last 10 years. And none of these have come to market. I think some of them are scams for investment money. I think some are actually lies by fossil fuel companies to delay their EV purchase by convincing customers that todays EVs will be obsolete next year, so people should wait. And others may actually be true but end up having some serious drawback that makes them inferior, such as cost, cycle life, temperature tolerances, etc. So, as always with these breakthroughs I just say "I'll believe it when I see it."
Absolutely!!! You hit the nail on the head. I used to be excited when the new battery technology comes forward but seeing the progress of this "new" technology, I'll only believe when it becomes commercial.
This
Ah, that's why this video is in my feed. I'm still a gasoline addict so I haven't really looked into EV's (Plus I don't think they make a Jeep Wrangler EV yet.) The way gas prices are going though I might be looking into this further.
That's because batteries are pretty bad at energy storage, can't improve something that doesn't work.!
They are a MUCH better storage medium than gasoline is. Way more efficient.
Really appreciate the interview segments, I know it’s not easy arranging expert interviews, it does round out the whole video. Thoroughly enjoyed this one! 👍
Also just putting some faces on the real heroes in the world (not limited to scientists of course but excluding most celebrities)
But between her accent & the low-quality audio, they didn't add value.
@@jursamaj The accent and audio didn't take away any value. Her (over)use of jargon, though, made it hard to know what the key takeaway was.
@@siddharthiyer7244 It certain did take away value, since it's hard to impossible to understand what she's saying. Some of the words are literally incomprehensible.
@@jursamaj ~ Her bits didn't add value either and it's too bad because I was interested to hear what she has to say on this. His fast vid clips cut off a bit at the end of some of his sentences. Look at Scotty Kilmer, an experienced video artist, to see how the fast clips are done; entertaining as well as informative.
As much as I like to listen to battery breakthroughs, I'm not sure I've ever heard from any of them again after a while. I get that this kind of stuff takes years to just leave the lab and then even more years to go into mass production for consumer products... but pretty much everything cool I heard from was never spoken of again, even in such a long timeframe.
Well, there are a few things to keep in mind:
1. most improvements on the battery side are so minor that you dont recognise it
2. most breakthroughs are completely accidental
You never hear of them because you just hear about better batteries later.
Years ago I heard about using lasers instead of spark plugs in cars to burn all of the petrol cleanly, thus making conventional internal combustion engines much greener and vastly more efficient overnight. That was the theory, anyway, never heard from it again. You'd think fossil fuel companies would have been all over it. But I guess car companies didn't like something that could vastly improve old cars (and thus not force people to buy new ones) with a bit of spannering.
In the video he says that it has been in testing for over a year
lithium ion used to be one of those batteries, it took decades to get adopted and then we almost immediately regretted it lol
Given that I can recall how short of a time AA batteries ran my Walkman in the early 80’s, we’ve sure come a long way with battery technology, but I love that these new discoveries will lead to safer, more sustainable and longer lasting batteries with greater capacity.
I believe that ultimately the solution is not in chemical batteries, rather in Super-Capacitors (solid state/graphene based) which pick up the charge electrostatically, having several advantages over current battery technologies:
1. There's no chemicals/reactions to degrade over the time.
2. It charges extremely fast, within minutes to a full charge.
3. It has a high power density in a lightweight package, but energy density is relatively low which needs improvement.
There are several companies exploring this technology, here's some videos:
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=super+capacitors
@@BillAnt How long would one of those capacitors realistically be able to hold their charge?
@@dragdritt I wouldn't worry about how long, because unless reality is rewritten how much will remain as not enough with capacitors vs batteries.
Well, and the fact a modern 'dumb' mp3 player will sip the power the Walkman guzzled as it wound your tapes.
At the cost of destroying the earth 👍
Gotta love technology
I know you mentioned it a little but there should have been a bigger focus on just how much lighter these batteries would be compared to lithium-Ion batteries. They are in the order of 1/3rd the weight of existing batteries. That is the reason the drone and aerospace industry is what they are aiming at. Also, lithium will largely be a solved problem in the next 5 years. The Salton Sea production of Lithium is coming online. They will literally 1.5x the amount of lithium on the market over the next 10 years.
Finally, flying cars.
8 times theoretical energy density should mean it is 8 times lighter than li-ion right?
Nevermind, I just realised he said drexel ones are only 3 times energy dense
Hmmm. But to continue the transition to EV's you need 50 times the lithium on the market over the next 10 years. And that ignores the needs for roof top and grid scale storage for PV. So I wouldn't say that it is a solved problem.
I second the motion for talking more about the properties of the chemistry. While 2x lithium ion is interesting, it still can't compete with LiFePo4 for cycle life and would be a barrier for mainstream EV use. What about operational temperature range? Charge/discharge rates? There would certainly be great applications for this tech, but there are still limitations as well.
I really hope we get a spread of useful battery chemistry out of this. I hate how heavily overinvested we are becoming on lithium to the point where grid storage, EVs and portable electronics are eating each other's supply chains to the detriment of all. Even having a straight up lesser option for things that don't need the best would alleviate the pressure at least.
we haven't had any alternatives to lithium for like 35 years
Thankfully hybrid vehicles are still mostly using NiMH.
Take a good look at the periodic table. Lithium is the lightest metal. Lithium is still the best hope for a stable battery material. But it is by no means tapped out in terms of improvements. We have a very long way to go in terms of electrolytes, anode materials, doping compounds etc. It is possible that in 30 years time lithium batteries will be unrecognizable and require far less lithium but be many times more energy dense.
Supply chain issues are mostly a problem because most of the industry believed 15-20 years ago that EVs would never be popular and never have demand. So nobody invested heavily enough in mining and extracting at the critical juncture. Investment TODAY is 15 years too late and the knockon effects will be felt throughout the industry. 2035 fossil fuels bans are well intentioned, but they came too late for industries to catch up. The demand problem will be with us for a very long time.
Are you also annoyed at how "heavily overinvested" we are in iron? Lithium has chemical properties that no other element has because if they did, then they'd be lithium.
Only about 7% of a lithium battery is lithium.
And nickel is likely to be the first metal we truly run short on for batteries.
Copper isn't far behind nickel.
And copper is extremely important in a LOT more ways than lithium is.
Making, transporting, and using basically All electricity, for example.
Lithium might get all the buzz, but there's a few "regular" metals more important than lithium is, when it comes to actually manufacturing a lithium battery.
Sodium-Sulphur would be amazing for grid scale storage, especially when their manufacture can be linked to desalination plants to supply fresh water.
Perhaps something for those Middle Eastern desalination plants to feed, especially in a post oil era.
I think Hydrogen electrolysis plants would work better for long-term storage. Imagine having a solar farm hooked up to a local energy grid in any dry desert-like place (central US, Middle East, North Africa, Mongolia, Australia, Southern Europe, etc). All surpluss energy would generate power for water electrolysis to separate hydrogen molecules from oxygen and store the hydrogen long term as a fuel source when needed.
Until recently the main issue was producing electrolysis cells large enough to make this concept quantifiable and grid-level worthy, but a recent breakthrough this year by a Danish phd student has flipped this completely and shortened this option with almost a decade (so that it is possible to implement within the next 5 years or so).
At the very least, a combination of hydrogen and sodium-sulphur batteries for storage would be great. The sulphur based batteries would likely present a better option for adaptive implementation if surplus energy storage is needed in a specific location for a duration of time until more permanent systems can be installed.
@@Real_MisterSir hydrogen electrolysis is a surprisingly inefficient cycle and depends on the availability of water. But solid state Sodium-Sulphur batteries can be moved anywhere, require no maintenance and supply electricity on demand.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Desalination plants need a plan to deal with brine, if they throw it back in the sea they will poison the water.
@@Real_MisterSir hydrogen storage and transport isn't like working with natural gas. It's leaks out of everything unless you take care to really maintain tightly specd equipment
This was really an impressive installment of your series, Matt. Your engagement of the Drexel team's scientist, Dr Vibha Kalra, really helped to make me understand the importance of this breakthrough. I would be intrigued by follow-up programs about the sulphur-sodium battery idea. Thank you!
Sulphur-sodium would be so much better than lithium and cobalt, i dont see why they aren't heard about and considered more often
that'll be a real game changer for EVs cheaper, way smaller eco footprint - sulfur & sodium are abundant.
But until such battries hit the market the "Toyota style plugins" (RAV prime, NX 450h+) are much better than pure EVs
I recall reading an article in 2016 about a discovery [by accident] that using a gel instead of liquid in Li-Ion battery increased the cycle life from 2k-8k range to well past 100k. Further testing needed to be done to see how feasible it was in the real world. Haven't heard a peep since.
Now with this sulfur option, it doesn't render the other solution obsolete, but the higher energy density certainly gives an advantage. Application purpose would be the driver of which technology was chosen.
IIRC the problem with the Gel solution from back then was that the advantages broke down when the battery got hotter... and the degradation was permanent.
So yes the longevity could be HUGE... but you had to NEVER let the battery get hot...
Which is nearly fucking impossible because in almost every use case heat got produced just by use... or worse by environment.
@@ArkAngelHFB Sounds like something that could be mitigated in an energy storage farm such as what Tesla is doing.
@@jumpinjehosephat1877 Most likely, but it also means that you have to charge and discharge is VERY slowly.
there have been so many breakthrough innovations in the past two decades... some low tech some high tech but none have changed much in dealing with the problems next generations have to cope with ... I fear that EV will not be the solution... more human powered vehicles and more mass transit is the solution
@@larsbee That is a wildly inaccurate statement.
Nomenclature! Everything you mentioned are all "lithium ion" batteries. What you're referring to as "lithium ion" are actually NCMA chemistries, which use various combinations of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum in their matrix.
So cool to hear the last author on the paper talk about the research. This seems pretty awesome.
Also just a minor thing, a 700% increase is actually an eight fold increase, not seven fold.
No you can't count the original energy density as an increase. 700% is just that. 7 times the base energy density. You don't count the current density as a value increase.
@@Frostsage ....that is not how % increases work, bruv. Travis is right.
I generally skip the almost daily "battery breakthrough" videos, but knew from past experience I could expect some grounded and accurate information here...Thanks Matt!
Sure hope this process is able to be scaled up to produce low cost high performance batteries. Sounds great, and five or six years is not too long to have an impact on EV adoption.
@Plentus Fair enough
Lol, I ignored it 3 times when it came up in my recommended videos, them finally clicked
6 years to what? Achieve what the market is offering? What will be that product after 6 year, current product will be surely more affordable and specs will probably double or triple before that "breakthrough" hit the market.
there have been so many breakthrough innovations in the past two decades... some low tech some high tech but none have changed much in dealing with the problems next generations have to cope with ... I fear that EV will not be the solution... more human powered vehicles and more mass transit is the solution
Same here 😆
Our biggest need as a human civilization. Better batteries... very exciting.
Hope this makes it to market!
fat hope
Yea just another scam where the 1st author is a intern at Tesla
It wont. Its hogwash.
As with many of these breakthroughs, I'll believe it when i see it.
Most of the breakthroughs are believable enough. The main problem is always about money. How to make it affordable or how to make it profitable.
IF, if this is really it, then there is an incredible amount of money which will push it through.
I agree a lot of people want to be the first so they will come out and say we found it so they can get a money injection..
all so the voltage out of them is only 2~2.5v, 3.7 for standard lithium battery's so you need more battery's cells.
and what about the lithium its self that is some thing that is getting stretchered out too
I believe it, but there is a huge step in between proof of concept to full blown production/application to the world. I really would love to believe in 5 years I could be buying these though....
@@jtelliso also there are many use cases for these batteries where they would be used instead of lithium ion even if they cost 5 times more, phones and other portable devices being such because of the limited capacity
Dr. Vibha Kalra's doing some awesome work, Lithium Sulphur batteries sound incredibly awesome 😃 GoodLuck! & thank you, Matt, for sharing this research with us🙏🏽
This is one of the critical steps needed to make large scale EV implementation viable. Glad to see some progress.
it's not real
I am unsure why this is, but i always watch videos with closed captions (no i don’t have a hearing problem) and it’s intersting that the closed captions knew 2 times to correct what was being said .
At 5:38 the closed captions importantly deciphers what the doctor is saying, she abbreviated something that a regular guy like me wouldn’t have know what she meant, but closed captions kept me fully informed.
At 6:22 it added in the important “4,000” number for the amount of charge cycles they got out of their new design.
I don’t know if you send a script into RUclips and that’s how they know what it was supposed to say or if the AI is that wildly smart or maybe YT has real people do the closed captioning 🤷♂️
Impressive nonetheless
Great video and i am subscribing now bro
I would like to see how many of the "breakthroughs that matter" shown on this channel over the past 2 years turned out to be vaporware.
Vaporware?
@@samuelallen6494 hot air/fake
@@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman Eh, It doesn't mean they're fake in this context. All of these breakthroughs are mostly real in battery tech. The issue are 99% of the time there's just not a way to mass produce the battery for market at a leveled cost that makes it profitable. Often times there's not even a means to scale the production at all so it's just a dead end. The materials are very real, but the bigger problem that's always even harder is how to mass produce them.
@@user-fy7ri8gu8l yeah, i know, and it sucks to be honest
@@user-fy7ri8gu8l capitalism dulls the edge
"Huh, that's weird", the source of the greatest breakthroughs. :)
Penicillin? Is that you?
Most of the time we forget that science is really just a formalized version of trying things and seeing what happens.
The lithium sulfur battery technology looks promising. I hope that it can deliver better batteries without impacting the environment. It seems necessary to find altternatives to fossil fuels and a good battery could help.
Renewable energy is the first goal.
Why? There is more green on the earth than possibly in a long time? Won't get into the science behind earth core temp etc. And it's effects by shade/trees. Co2 is a necessity for earth
@@isaiah4510, nice repetition of infinitely refuted denial industry Big Lies. How's the pay? Or do you actually believe all that?!
Yeah, advancements in electronic technology has been increasing at a very high rate except batteries, their technology has been the same more or less since last 12 years. Recently, we have been seeing advancement through llithium polymer batteries and now this.
@@kylenolan2710 well they are kind of facts. Do your own research besides the global initiatives put forth by media. I'm not against renewable energy by the way.
You do a great deal of research, and well done for getting high level researchers to give you their time.
I remember watching a documentary on batteries. From I recall at the time there 10 different type of batteries the scientists were working on. The crux was in the lab all ten worked perfectly, the issue became manufacturing it in the plant. They figured once that can be achieved these batteries will end up in the market place. They pointed out that it took 10 yrs to perfect the manufacturing of lithium ion batteries. It’ll take some doing it will happen
Thanks Matt; great video. I appreciate you adding the interview with Dr. Karla. Getting the first hand perspective on the research was very helpful. I also appreciate the time and effort you put into presenting a well balanced analysis of the subject matter. Keep up the good work! Looking forward to your series on the new house.
This is awesome. Well done guys. As an interesting side note I was involved in the early days of that Rio Tinto project in Serbia. That was way back in 2003. That’s how long these things take and even now it’s hitting issues!!!
By hitting issues you mean RT is no longer allowed to explore Serbia?
What does that have to do with research on battery technology?
Its better this than having Rio Tinto destroying ecosystem like they wish for goals of profit. There is laws and to be honest we all know Tinto is not without a stain concerning pollution or even respect of native or aboriginal land . There is laws because they have (mines) destroyed many things and leaving like theif. Profit, Profit, profit is all they have in mind
And I would invite people to read about Rio Tinto serbia . Out of the Tinto internet page and go into external sources who are not as biased as scientific working for Tinto and boosting or shrinking number so Tinto get the green light asap.
@@andrazlogar861 well sure when you have pollution even before it start and nothing growing around the well they used for testing no wonder why big protest went on . Rio and most of mining companies just dont give a dam about doing things the good way . There is always a ecologic disaster with theme. After they come up with tail between the legs to manipulate the people saying it wont happen again but guess what it happens every time . Just take tinto who destroyed a 45 000 yo aboriginal sacred site...as always...a few excuses when manifestations start and out they go keeping on going . Its like they are too stupid to think human do remember.
Scrolling through my feed, your video (thankfully) shows up, but somehow my brain saw the yellow powder and read, "Battery" as "Batter-y"....like it was cake mix. Delicious, fluffy, batter-y goodness breakthrough. I don't know wtf is wrong with me this morning.
A couple of things to consider about battery development:
Speaking as a renewable energy professional, former EV builder, and long time battery geek, I have observed that if you want to know if a battery will last ten years, it takes…ten years. Ten years using the batteries twenty different ways.
Chemistries that work well in the lab don’t necessarily work well at high discharge rates, with thermal cycling, or with the vibration and jolts of vehicular use.
Reducing size and weight has consequences. No battery is 100% efficient and the heat of charging and discharging has to go somewhere. The more energy you pack in a small space the harder it is to get the waste heat energy out. Less surface area per volume. The less mass, the less to transmit that heat to the surface of the battery. There’s a limit, even with active cooling, to how energy dense you can make a battery. At some point you have to space cells to make it artificially less dense.
I blame sci-fi for the dilithium crystal fallacy: we’ll extract a city’s worth of power out of this thing the size of a baseball without it glowing white hot and exploding. No problem.
Most applications are more concerned about weight than volume, so maybe layouts using materials with higher specific energy could trade some volume for cooling? I mean, if your EV is already designed for a battery of a certain volume, then if you have cells with 3 times the specific energy, you could space them out in the volume you have and get more cooling that way.
@@dalegreer3095 True! Car makers have figured out how to incorporate the volume of present technology batteries into a sedan, so any volume bonus can go to cooling.
I really love your channel and appreciate the well researched, medium-deep analysis and future outlook comments on new technologies. You do an outstanding job.
I would LOVE to see a graphical "map" of the various energy storage schemes comparing their efficiency, energy density, expected development and likely market launch times and maybe a few other factors illustrated. I think it would be fantastic and super-interesting to see these compared to Li-ion and even to update the graph every year and watch as some techs really take off or appear out of nowhere while other dwindle and disappear.
Really fascinating stuff!
he has done no reserch att all.... it's a litteral scam this does not work
I'm pretty excited about what this means for the future of small mobile robots - batteries have always been one of the main limiting factors on weight and cost. The better safety sounds good too.
Matt: I appreciate your tendency to step back and research the broader scope of a market or technology to nest the specific point of interest in the greater context... as you did by bringing in Lyten to this discussion.
I think what also has to be taken into account when you discuss new battery technologies is, wether it is possible to recycle the system or if its composites are so connected, that they create a hot mess of material that cannot be broken down back to its constituents. A battery, that cannot be recycled after its use is a worthless battery.
You have disposable batteries that are not being recycled so whats the difference. If the rechargeable batteries last a long time it should not matter that much.
@@sargonoshana2324 Well of course I have to worry a lot. Everything, that is not recyclable creates waste that piles up and is lost for future generations to create new things. No matter what the lifetime of a battery is, as long as it is finite, it will pile up and deplete the resources for generations to come. This holds true for everything we make.
Great video Matt. The tech sounds promising but we'll just have to wait. Sometimes I feel numb from all the "New Battery Tech Solves EVERYTHING" announcements. Seems like a better mousetrap is invented every day but then crickets. Still waiting for 2025 because all the worlds problems will be solved in that year according to all the announcements recently LOL. Keep up the good work.
This is because a new battery technology doesn't just have to be better; it has to be _so much better_ that it beats out the economies of scale already in place for lithium-ion batteries.
I didn't even have to wait beyond the intro to answer the question. As soon as you said "it may be the holy grail of power storage" THAT automatically guaranteed that it will always be about ten years away.
I believe that variety in battery tech will be the most important factor in whether the world can move towards non-combustibles. Civilisation consumes energy in every form and every size...so having multiple techs allows manufacturers to adjust for where it's needed.
For power, the main problem with renewables is storage. Better battery tech will allow renewables to ride out dips and peaks, and also provide a buffer for when demand spikes.
I don't believe we'll be able to 100% convert to renewables in the next 20 years, but we might be able to do something like an 80-20 split instead. Coal/Oil plants will provide a stable output to maximise their efficiency, while renewables handle the rest.
I love your channel. Seriously, it is like those Popular Science Magazines that I used to read as a child. I feel bad because I know that A LOT of the stuff you bring up isn't going to happen in my lifetime (hopefully another 40 years left). I feel that sense of false of hope that I felt in the early 2000's when none of that stuff came true from those Popular Science Magazines I read in the early 1990's. Keep up the great work, but maybe I should work my expectations again.
Most of the stuff he covers are only a few years out
Hopefully?
Your life must be good if you look forward to 40 years more of that
I think technology is advancing exponentially. Every five years we see something very interesting. I think battery and solar technology will make a huge jump forward in the next 3-5 years.
pop sci was such great reading back then. once in a while i still see new tech come to market that i read from them decades ago
@@TexanUSMC8089 I don't. I remember reading about people being on Mars by 2000, then 2010, then 2020. Unless we have a massive breakthrough with another element, I don't see it happening.
I do like the video showing both C° and F° degrees.
Drexel: Eureka!
China: Thanks, we'll take it from here.
Dr. Kalra looks smooth, almost too smooth
Being a vehicle technology educator, and excited for EVS but acknowledging the range issue, this has me very excited.
Honestly, you do an amazing job keeping up with battery technology! Thank you for always sharing this information, I am excited for the future!!
Honestly I just want a battery tech that doesn't degrade as badly as lithium ion for the consumer market now, heard so many miracle materials/technique/compound in the 2010s but lithium ion is still here as the most common battery in a lot of applications.
Yes battery tech is in reality is way too slow in progressing, & it is NOT getting cheaper, EV's are just getting more expensive. If EV's are to widely adopted, the price has to go down, not UP UP UP.
@@sevencostanza3931 BS! Prices are going down. You can buy Ford Maverick for $20K and we have double digits inflation. Thanks to stupid administration, but that what majority wanted.
LiFePo4 is lasting longer in cycles…
lithium titanate basically lasts forever…
ithium phosphate has been taking over generators for having a longer life cycle and not exploding when punctured. but its heavier so its not in phones or drones yet
I mean why would manufacturers voluntarily invest in a longer lasting product? If you have to buy a new one just because the battery dies, that's perfect for them.
What I want to know about these cells, are what are the nominal, fully charged, and discharged voltages on a single cell and what the amperage output would be like (example, a single cell of 1000mah capacity)
The voltage should be probably/hopefully also around 4.2V. I mean It is still using lithium. The thing about all of these "Battery Breakthrough" that we are hearing every month is that the majority of them (100% until now) are only feasable in the laboratory.
You have to distinct between stationary and mobile power storage. For stationary power storage energy density not a issue. It just do not matter how heavy your batteries are.
So if your batteries are twice as heavy and cost only half as mutch thats good. For mobile application it is the other way around.
With the kind of challenges still ahead. 5 to 6 years seems like an optimistic number to not scare investors.
Well of course it is, how do you develop a technology without money.
Well spoken and communicated info. Thanks.
Just a few years back our auto mechanic(life-long) said electric cars would never make it due to battery issues. Ha… I’m betting on these new battery technologies… TMI to follow: : ) I grew up with an oil burner car(worn out 6 volt 52 Chevy that guzzled $.43/qt. bulk oil with its Ethyl gasoline)… dang, that was a lot of unnecessary pollution. ✌🏼🐸
My vote is for graphene batteries if we can develop the technology to produce it cheaply on a mass scale. It is way superior to lithium in terms of being much better for the environment, wide availability, and producing a much more powerful lighter efficient battery.
I agree, graphene might be the way. It has so many possible applications besides batteries that it makes sense.
As a rule of thumb, laboratory discoveries and technology breakthroughs are always ten years away from coming to market.
As a Rule, they Never come to market. The exceptional case is a minimum 10 years. There are some companies look to speed up that process, at least for LFP battery improvements.
@@patreekotime4578 lol right said
usually this is true. but in this case it is more of an overhaul that can be put on existing battery plants. imagine Tesla creating 2 types of batteries using different source materials on more or less the "same" productionline. which is huge. all that remains to be seen though. but at least there is hope in this case
@@patreekotime4578 I think they're referring to the joke that no matter how great the breakthrough is, it's always 10 years _from today_ for any given innovation (I.e., a rolling wave of 10-years-out-things-that-will-never-come-out). Just like full self driving (saying this cheekily as an ML researcher. ;))
@@fernbear3950 But full self driving did come out already... You never heard of the Tesla FSD controversy of 2018? People were using self-driving on residential, unlined streets, and still are today.
Matt, hi from Germany. A company, Theion, in Berlin, Germany is mass-producing this batteries already. Hopefully we can use this batteries for homes and cars in the not so far future.
Otherwise, great job with your videos. As they say, Keep up the good work. German Greetings. Oh, and stay safe and healthy.
I always get a chuckle when hearing about the history of various chemical discoveries. A huge number of them "And I accidentally discovered..." in there somewhere.
It's interesting for sure although I would like to see a comparison with Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries , charge/discharge cycles are about 10 times better than Lithium Ion but it does sacrifice weight and some power density in it's early lifetime but surpasses it within a hundred cycles or so .
They last far more than just a few extra hundred cycles. LFP batteries last from over 3x to 10x than typical Lithium Ion (3,000-10,000 cycles), and they do not have Nickle or Cobalt. Many new Tesla Model 3's use LFP batteries, especially in China
Edit; Did some more research lol
About half of the new Model 3's come with LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate), and are 9% heavier 😅
The 3k-10k cycles can be seen as exaggerated as the capacity is lower and will have to go though more charges for the equal range of Lithium-Ion. If you go with 2/3's energy density, that still means 2x-5x mileage life.
They seem to have more stable chemistry, theoretically better charge rates without degrading (recommend 100% charge BTW) but limited to 170Kw 😅
So, if you don't mind hitting the charger a litter more (267 EPA range, with 250+ observed in tests going 65 vs 358 EPA on the Lithium-Ion long range Model 3) you can charge 100% without worrying about degrading the batteries and can run them down then all the way back up also without degrading any much faster. And it's half a second faster than the alternative Standard Range with Lithium-Ion.
Side note; the Lithium Ion does recommend 80% charge for daily use reducing range by 20% giving you just over 210 miles BUT the batteries also degrade more when going under 20% if i'm not wrong. But with current pricing it's "only" 6K more for the long range with AWD and better speaker system which is considered one of the best in any car made 😍
Keep in mind there are some heavy duty applications, such as railroad locomotives, where additional weight could really be an asset, since weight directly translates to tractive effort.
@@MrHeHim heh I didn't say they didn't last far more cycles in total use , what I said was this , The power density (the amount of power per pound) of a LiFePh4 battery is lower than lithium ion only for a short period of time in other words due to the degradation of the power density of a lithium ion versus LiFePh4 has the power density graph cross after a couple hundred cycles or in other words LiFePh4 has a higher power density after only a couple hundred cycles . Personally if I bought an electric car I would want the LiFePh4 batteries for several reason . My battery backup systems I use camping and etc. are all LiFePh4 .
Thanks Matt, I hope I live long enough for some of these battery technologies to hit the streets 🙂
Yep would like to see a 30 lb e mountain bike while l am still able to ride 😉
My guess is that raw material shortages might play a role in the choice of future battery technology. Exchanging Lithium based technology with Sodium, at least for stationary grid energy storage, would be part of the solution.
This channel is VERY quickly becoming my favorite! These videos do a GREAT job of feeding my need to understand more.
I remember the progression of rechargeable batteries. Everyone was gaga over NiCads, then NiMhs, then Lithium, then Li-Air, Li-ion, etc.
Great video Matt! Sounds like this has a great chance of hitting the market 👌.
How many breakthroughs does it take to change (the power source of) a lightbulb?
Yes
Yes
I'd be interested to know the efficiency of the batteries they have been testing. The lifespan and energy density advantages sound great but the efficiency is also hugely important.
Depends on the usage... as I understand half the initial cost of a good green energy power plant is now sunk into the batteries. So the full plant could end up being 66% cost of the orginal. At that point you just build 3 solar plant for the price of 2 and you don't mind the efficiency.
@@hurktang that's a fair point but only if the efficiency is within an expected range. If the efficiency is low enough then scaling up the input could a become uneconomical. But, just like you, I imagine this is not the case. I was thinking more in terms of the car/drone usage. If it becomes the standard battery for all EVs then the efficiency becomes important. When you scale up the usage, the losses could really mount up. And if this kind of battery is used to store energy multiple times after being generated then it gets worse still (i.e. wind turbine > on site battery > grid > ev battery). That said, if the efficiency is higher than current batteries then we are definitely onto a winner! 😁 Also, now I think about it, I wonder about charge times too 🤔 we definitely need another video on this! *Hint hint
@@charonstyxferryman that's true! Fingers crossed for a follow up video..
here in the Phoenician valley AZ the high today is 108F (47c)... and it's not the peak of summer yet... soooo.... yeah, those alt. electrolytes are a no-go...
Just for a general note; most any laboratory discovery across any discipline is assumed to take about 5 to 6 years to reach the consumer (after they start - Dr. Kalra didn't seem to imply they were ready; though, that could just be reasonable caution as one would want and expect from a well rounded Scientist). Five to six years is the bell curve average if related industrial processes either already exist or can be easily adapted to the new discovery's requirements. But, the time is longer when it would involve a completely new industrial process (new machinery and scale testing stretch cost and efforts out) or the time is shorter if existing machinery and processes already work with it. Like where a small chemistry change to an existing battery could take only months to implement. It's a good set of rules for looking at ROI over time if investing in startups or companies who are trying to use something just out of a lab. It doesn't make for a bad investment if completely new industrial processes are necessary, but 5 to 6 can turn into 9 to 10 years with increased risk for the investment if another discovery in the field gets there faster with similar benefits.
Hey Matt, love all your videos. This is my favourite youtube channel :)
It is interesting to me that in the pursuit of protecting the environment, we still must dig into the earth and strip mine for "environmentally friendly" resource. While we hear so much about the horrendous effect of our use of coal and oil, we have heard very little regarding our strip mining digs into the earth for nickel and cobalt and just as little regarding the hazardous waste that the thousands of billions of batteries create. It is nice to hear that sodium is a far more willing resource to produce. I suspect that there would be a trillion-dollar industry for scientists and engineers who could discover how to recycle these products.
Maybe you can make battery out of your urines. That would be great for the environment.
"Huh, that's odd."
You never want your doctor to say it.
But you love to hear a scientist say it.
Thanks Matt for your focus on energy storage technology. I'm writing to suggest you consider a relatively new technology for energy storage, that is green ammonia. Ammonia is essentially a way to store hydrogen using lower technology than that needed for gaseous H2. The infrastructure already exists for storage and transport of liquid ammonia, and it is suitable for transportation because it can be used in diesel engines (with some tweaking) with an energy density more than half of diesel fuel. Recent scientific articles and a test project in Australia have demonstrated an N2-H2O fuel cell and improved ways of generating ammonia from unused electricity. I hope you can consider checking this out and presenting it sometime to your (considerable!) audience.
This is super exciting stuff. Just put in an order for an Aptera... just imagining being able to have the 1000 mile range battery option, yet have the pack weigh half of what the 250 mile does! Amazing!
You know, the thing with all these developments and that they are always touted as 'cheaper this, cheaper that', but the consumer just never sees anything of that. Things just get more expensive with manufacturers and/or lawmakers coming up with a plethora of reasons to keep prices high. New battery tech is nice, but I don't believe for one second that this new battery, or hydrogen, or anything else, will actually result in more buying power for the average consumer.
That's almost always a manufacturer decision, not a lawmaker one. But you're right. There's no market reason for them to lower prices when they can just increase their profit margin.
If they do manage to replace lithium with sodium the price will definitely come down due to the abundance of sodium
@@MindForgedManacle I guess that the impact of law makers is more country-specific than manufacturer decision making but where I live, for example, so many things are illegal. Want to save on fuel and get a small electric scooter for grocery shopping? You can't because forbidden to ride on public roads? Want to electrify your internal combustion car? Not allowed without a lot of time consuming and expensive checks and authorisations, etc.
Ultimately, I think lawmakers have more power over pricing than manufacturers do because they can limit what a product should cost.
@@grimaffiliations3671 Yes, for the manufacturers to build their products. Not for us the consumers.
@@MindForgedManacle It becomes a lawmaker one when they enact such restrictive regulations that the manufacturers can't operate at a profit. For example, Smithfield (pork processing) is shutting down their operation in Kalifornia due to regulations and cost of operation. This is also going to impact their operations in Utah and Arizona, costing jobs.
Great video. Why though use metric with imperial units in brackets and then all of a sudden use gallons and omit litres? ... Not only that, but why use gallons per tonne, i.e. imperial unit per metric unit?
Agreed about the inconsistency. Regarding tonnes when spelled that way, that is indeed metric, but on the screen he spelled it ton. In the U.S. we have an imperial ton that is 2,000 avoirdupois pounds or 907.18474 kg. Here when we speak of a ton outside of a scientific or technical context, that is the ton that's understood unless we specify the term "metric tonne". In writing, if we see just "tonne" it is normal to assume that metric is referenced, because "tonne" is a traditionally British/UK spelling of the word. 20 years ago in U.S. writing, i never ever saw the spelling "tonne" alone without the word "metric" in front, because there was deemed too much possibility for confusion. After all, the words tonne and ton are technically the same word, just using British vs. American spelling conventions.
Today, however, i'm seeing many more cases of just "tonne" than i am of "metric tonne", which i suppose reflects that younger generations in the U.S. are unlikely to even consider the possibility of using an imperial ton in technical writing. I suspect it's now being taught that in technical usage it is a serious error to quote imperial tons for any purpose, even as a translation. Though that was not entirely the case when i was in university in the 80s. However, in public communications, the spelling "ton" is still commonplace and is widely understood to refer to the imperial ton.
yeah, it wouldn't be hard to have both on screen at the same time
@@no_rubbernecking Wow, I had no idea about the ton / tonne difference (not only that, but after some googling I now learnt that there is a "short ton" and "long ton", with both tons expressing different weights of course...). Funnily enough, this shows the need for consistency as this means that I would have confused one of the units used, therefore arriving to a wrong conclusion solely based on unit confusion. … Imperial units strike again.
@@rehorekMichal Yes indeed! Though I feel like within my lifetime we will be using more metric than imperial.
I am an experimental human longevity researcher.
I'm not telling you the exact biological pathways as to why and how, but Sulphur and Sulphide deficiency, and their transporters, plays a huge role in ageing, and many of the frailty issues involved in ageing.
The reason is a lot like why we get dysfunction in batteries, and is prevented and regulated by NQO1, the equivalent of a cellular carburettor.
Maybe I should try to hack what I know about the human body into a hybrid biological battery. I've already found ways to regulate NQO1 in such a fashion that it extremely slows, sometimes even freezes ageing, via modulation of redox reactions and cellular access to NAD+. It can cause most cancers to self-destruct, by undermining their access to NAD+, in the process.
This video actually gave me an idea how one would go about it. What is going wrong in the batteries is the same as the buildup of advanced glycation end products in human ageing, and certain non mutation based cancers.
It sound great, but everytime there is some news about a breakthrough of some kind, then that breakthrough isn't heard from again in a long time. I hope that this can actually be used and not forgotten in a few months
World needs a battery breakthrough but hasn't seen one since Lithion-ion in the late eighties. It has seen countless breakthrough announcements though, usually just a few years and a lot of funding removed from commercialisation....
While I love these technology break throughs, I wonder how these breakthrough would affect recycling of current batteries? A new chemistry that doesn't use any of the materials in the current battery and can be made cheaper due to the abundance of raw materials (Sodium and Sulphur) should reduce the economic viability of recycling. Would it still be recycled or is it another E-Waste problem in the making?
Most things aren't being recycled nearly to the efficiency that people think it is. If batteries are the same it would not surprise me at all.
Nuclear
You WAY undersold how easy sulphur is to obtain. Almost all Canadian Oil and Gas, the cleanest and most ethical on the planet, has sulphur in it due to it being ‘sour’ or having H2S compounds in it. We literally have to pull the sulphur out and through it away. Alberta could become the next battery manufacturing hub with this news. We have both Lithium salts and sulphur in our O&G.
I would love to have a electric motorcycle...
I love how some people promote Battery powered cars as solution to pollution but are silent on the mass contamination of the extraction/production/disposal of the batteries. It's the old story, as long as the contamination does not happen in my backyard, I don't care. If I don't know about it, it doesn't happen.
Wacky!
I love how batteries can be improved by near-infinite combinations of elements, as well as HOW those elements are processed.
'Vapor deposition made it better, but we don't know how or why.'
I love it.
Another wonderful magic battery technology... yet for the past however many decades the battery technology world has been slowly evolving. And every few months a new wonderful technology is announced, yet none of them move to large scale production to move the needle in any significant way.
So I am sorry to be skeptical but till this actually shows up on shelves this is a fun trick in the lab but nothing else than that.
Lithium was once a "wonderfull battery technology"
@@mathieuprevot8753 yes it was and many many years later it was just a bit better than the competing technology already being mass produced
This is exactly the issue with these "wonder tech" stories. People seem to always conveniently leave out the many years it takes to move from a lab fluke to a production line. By the time mass production of the wonder material finally begins the rest of the market is nearly as good as the new product making the end result evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
@@RobCoops Yes but every technology has a limit. When Lithium did hit the market, it kinda sucked, but now it's miles ahead of Nickel. It's always like that. First cars sucked, you were better off with a horse, but after a while it become better while horse's technology had reached a plateau.
Hmm.. 6 years.. 6 years to market might be short but I would imagine that it should be possible to create a prototype / proof of concept battery to have something to show for in months rather than years.
If they truly jumped over the biggest hurdle in Li-S battery than I don't see any reason for not focusing all energy on producing a standard cell for demo purposes. You don't have to understand tech to use it. I get they are scientist and it's their job to understand things but business does not need that. It just needs a product that works.
Show to business that a battery can be built and they will shower you with all the money necessary for funding research work needed for full understanding. Otherwise this tech might just never be viable for real-world use because somebody will get there sooner with a different solution and just take all the market to a different direction. Those things happened in the past.
Build a demo battery ASAP.
तुमचे म्हणणे योग्य आहे.
Runaway business is in large part howe we are here today. It is critical to understand something fully, full stop.
@@thecocktailian2091 Actually, you don't have to understand absolutely everything about something to use it. We still don't understand how light in some ways acts like particles and in other ways like waves.
These things also happened in the past:
- a tech we used but didn't understand fully - freons,
- a tech we understood and used anyway despite the negative consequences - leaded gasoline.
@@muche6321 True but I wasn't saying start selling it... I was just saying make a demo battery and start testing it.
'over charge discharge cycles' the CCs through me off when you didn't include the 4,000 matt! good video as always
As somebody doing his PhD on Li-S batteries, I am happy they get more coverage. Carbonate electrolytes redirected the research towards a solid-state conversion process (with an liquid electrolyte. So we are not talking here about full solid state batteries).
But, we are still far away from commercial release. Full carbonate based system so not yet achieve the energy density of commercial li-ion batteries. (or in other words, a LIB powered car can still deive further than any car that would use carbonate based Li-S batteries.
Also, for a new battery technology to succeed, it needs to integrate well in the current production scheme, since the production of LIB is highly optimized. If a company has to buiöd a new production process, it would take years before the prices are competitive (due to economies of scale).
So, many challenges ahead, but we are working in it :)
Its so cool that not only is this a new technology, but it already has 2 separately researched methods that will compete commercially in the near future.
Battery technology hasn't had a true "revolutionary breakthrough" in the entire history of the storage battery. We have been blessed with many incremental bumps in storage density over many years. We're so close to being truly practical in Li-Ion and LiFEP04 cells. Just imagine how much a sudden 25% bump in charge density would change the world!
Nuclear, carbon-free
As someone who works in oil and gas this scares me and excites me at the same time. Anything close to a 2x density improvement would definitely accelerate the already exponential advancements in energy storage and utilization.
2 questions:
1] is the voltage per cell close to the cell voltage of li-ion?
2] would these require a similar "smart charger" like CC/CV?
I'm always building things, just trying to see if I'll need to start learning new technology for these new batteries in the coming years.
Hopefully it works out. If it does we could see a rapid uptake of EVs and other energy storage that could change our lives in a very positive way.
I like the concept, but until I see this new technology hit the market I have to remain guarded. One Gentleman said he thought fossil fuel big wig were throwing us a curve ball, and I'm not convinced that he is wrong.
The next couple of years will tell. If they come up with another battery that's supposed to be just as good or better I will still be guarded. This technology must come from outside sources, but big oil has a very long reach. Remember how Nikola Tesla did even make it into the history books. Well that's likely because of big oil and wall street. Oh please lord let something good finally happen with energy in this world!
Thanks for a fantastic presentation!
Cobalt is used to reduce battery cell volatility. Iron based cells do not have this problem. They are a little less energy dense but can be used 0% to 100% without degradation. More dense LFPs would be low cost yet maintain their low environmental impact.
sulfur chemistry still has a long way to go... plus the stable voltage plateau (~2.1V) for discharging/charging is significantly lower than Li-ion.
Sodium sulphide was actually touted as far back as the '70s as a much-lighter replacement for lead/acid in cars. At the time, it couldn't match the overall performance, hence we're currently still stuck with the old heavyweights. I'd always thought, tho, that the system had potential, and now - big thanks for this video - Cinderella may just be going to the ball. Really look forward to developments in the next few years.
Battery development excites me to no end, our lack of battery storage seriously slows down what we can do with consumer technology.
FANTASTIC!! Possibly more energy out of more readily available materials!
This has become my favorite channel! Terrific content!
I still remember NiCd and NiMh Batteries in RC being a thing, then came LiPo and Fe. If Lithium-Sulfur is another jump like that EVs and a backup storage for renewables might be within reach
Outstanding ! The search for a better battery continues.
It'd be interesting to know what the nominal voltage of the cell is, the discharge curve, and the charging rate and protocol.
we've been listening to breakthrough battery technologies for more than 20 years :)
Very exciting breakthrough on so many dimensions. Not quite the energy density of carbon based fuels, but this started me dreaming of an electric fan jet technology for commercial airlines.
The interview transforms this video from just being a regurgitation of some articles and/or scientific papers into an actual scientific report. Please do more of these sorts of interviews with actual scientists.
Cheaper to make? Sure. But I'd bet you my right eye that they'll still charge the same amount to customers for them.
I've seen you post this before. Exact same video if I remember correctly.