Evolution and limit of battery energy density

[Andres125sx]

Quant claims their nano flow cell improves energy density of previous fuel cells by a factor of 5!

That´s still similar to Li-Ion, but it´s cheaper, environement friendly... and liquid, wich is awesome for automotive industry as cars in need of a charge only need to fill their tanks with charged electrolite

The numbers they claim are too good to be true, 1090bhp and up to 800km range

Thank you Marcus for the link!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFcDAbcQIKE

Rather old news. And sadly nothing revolutionary. They were calculating with a 200-800 liter tank. Which is a joke...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/03 ... quant.html

It uses two 200 litre tanks, and they say they could use 800 litres tanks for improved range. What part do you consider a joke?

Ok I agree, a 1090 bhp electric car with 800km range looks like a joke

The surprising part is you don´t find this revolutionary...


BTW, your link says they´d build test prototypes in 2014. Those prototypes are on the road since 2014. In 2015 they did re-design the car, and now in 2016 they´ve been licenced for road use in Europe, and their quantino have performed an endurance test where it was driven for 14 hours without refuelling

Not what I´d call old news exactly

http://www.nanoflowcell.com/history/

[mzso]

It uses two 200 litre tanks, and they say they could use 800 litres tanks for improved range. What part do you consider a joke?

Ok I agree, a 1090 bhp electric car with 800km range looks like a joke

The surprising part is you don´t find this revolutionary...


BTW, your link says they´d build test prototypes in 2014. Those prototypes are on the road since 2014. In 2015 they did re-design the car, and now in 2016 they´ve been licenced for road use in Europe, and their quantino have performed an endurance test where it was driven for 14 hours without refuelling

Not what I´d call old news exactly

http://www.nanoflowcell.com/history/

The size of the tanks. The weight of the tanks. The whole concept. It takes two 200l tanks by default, which is even more laughable than I thought. Did you ever see a 200l tank in real life?
Two 800l tanks is just pure comedy... That's comparable to the volume of a car. Maybe you can carry it as a car sized trailer.

It's also not efficient. Not surprising with the use of fuel cells and low voltage.
They noted 20 kWh/100 km Roughly the same as a Tesla Model S. They of course neglected to include the energy cost, efficiency of producing the electrode solutions. (Much less the transportation of them, which a traditional cheat)

[Andres125sx]

The size of the tanks. The weight of the tanks. The whole concept. It takes two 200l tanks by default, which is even more laughable than I thought. Did you ever see a 200l tank in real life?

Did you ever see a 50l fuel tank, an ICE and a gearbox?

Anycase, what´s the problem with those big tanks? You should worry about car perfomance, efficiency or even aesthetics, but if the car performs, is efficient, and you like it, who cares about the size of the internal components?

Also, you´re missing an important point, energy density does improve, so the concept is anything but laughable. If it is doable today, with current energy density (even if that means you need big tanks), then the concept is perfectly viable, as energy density does improve so the tanks will be reduced in a near future

The laugable thing is thinking we can continue burning millions petrol barrels daily when we all know that´s completely unsustainable

It's also not efficient. Not surprising with the use of fuel cells and low voltage.
They noted 20 kWh/100 km Roughly the same as a Tesla Model S.

Obviously, electric setups have an efficiency above 90%, so if you´re expecting big gains in this you will be disappointed, but that´s only your problem

Battery have no effect on electric efficiency, they only store the energy

They of course neglected to include the energy cost

Again, obviously. The cost of the energy will depend on where did you get it, from coal plants, nuclear, renewables, from your own solar panels or wind turbine... it can be similar to petrol, much much more affordable, or simply free

efficiency of producing the electrode solutions. (Much less the transportation of them, which a traditional cheat)

No, they specifically say the electrode solution is very affordable. About transportation, please show me the cost of transportation of petrol if you can find it...

[mzso]

@Andres125sx
You're lining in your fairy tale world as usual. Not needing to care with facts or reality. Try to think for once, instead of gobbling up everything zealosly.

Also, you´re missing an important point, energy density does improve,

As a matter of fact volumetric energy density is far worse. Hence the giant tanks.

or even aesthetics

But not reality? Or viability?

is efficient

Unlikely.

who cares about the size of the internal components?

Only those who fancy using it in the real world.

Obviously, electric setups have an efficiency above 90%, so if you´re expecting big gains in this you will be disappointed, but that´s only your problem

Battery have no effect on electric efficiency, they only store the energy

This is the dumbest thing you've written so far. All of it is wrong. Not only it's not obvious it's not true. Peak efficiency might be 90%+. In practice it's less.
As for batteries. I have no words. It's breathtakingly dumb. Of course it has an effect on efficiency as does anything in the chain, from wherever you compare. Actually it matter twice as much as the motor because you "charge" and "discharge". In this case it means creating the water based electrodes, then using them in the fuel cell.

Again, obviously. The cost of the energy will depend on where did you get it, from coal plants, nuclear, renewables, from your own solar panels or wind turbine... it can be similar to petrol, much much more affordable, or simply free

Wrong again, obviously. I was talking about creating the electrode solutions (the analogue of charging). Not getting the energy for doing that.

No, they specifically say the electrode solution is very affordable. About transportation, please show me the cost of transportation of petrol if you can find it...

They can say a lot of thing. Wishing thing don't make things real. However affordable it is, It will have an energy cost. Probably something lots worse than charging a battery because that has 90+% round-trip efficiency.
With their approach it's like manufacturing the battery on every recharge. It's not a true rechargeable battery.

[Andres125sx]

@Andres125sx
You're lining in your fairy tale world as usual. Not needing to care with facts or reality. Try to think for once, instead of gobbling up everything zealosly.

Also, you´re missing an important point, energy density does improve,

As a matter of fact volumetric energy density is far worse. Hence the giant tanks.

Sorry but....

So it´s me who should think before gobbling up everything zealosly, but when I say energy density improves so tanks will be reduced during the years your reply is "it is worse"

Please follow your own advice and think before replying. Even with giant tanks it is viable today, even if you don´t like it, so with time, as energy density does improve, tanks will be reduced and the concept will be even better

or even aesthetics

But not reality? Or viability?

So it is a several years project, with recent license for road use, but for you it´s not real or viable

Obviously, electric setups have an efficiency above 90%, so if you´re expecting big gains in this you will be disappointed, but that´s only your problem

Battery have no effect on electric efficiency, they only store the energy

This is the dumbest thing you've written so far. All of it is wrong. Not only it's not obvious it's not true. Peak efficiency might be 90%+. In practice it's less.
As for batteries. I have no words. It's breathtakingly dumb. Of course it has an effect on efficiency as does anything in the chain, from wherever you compare. Actually it matter twice as much as the motor because you "charge" and "discharge". In this case it means creating the water based electrodes, then using them in the fuel cell.

So that KWh/100km data does include losses while charging? I really doubt it so no, battery does not play a role on that number you did critizice

I didn´t say battery does not have losses, I said battery does not affect the consumption numbers of electric cars, same as ICE consumption numbers does not include how many litres of oil were necessary to process that petrol

With their approach it's like manufacturing the battery on every recharge. It's not a true rechargeable battery.

That´s true, I read somewhere the liquid can be charged or replaced, but reading their web they said the liquid is consumed

[mzso]

Sorry but....

So it´s me who should think before gobbling up everything zealosly, but when I say energy density improves so tanks will be reduced during the years your reply is "it is worse"

You made that sentence wretchedly. "energy density does improve" is false anyways. Energy density doesn't just improve magically.
Maybe it will maybe it won't. Since this is just salts dissolved in water it probably won't .

So it is a several years project, with recent license for road use, but for you it´s not real or viable

I didn't say it's not real. It is. But it doesn't seem to be viable.

So that KWh/100km data does include losses while charging? I really doubt it so no, battery does not play a role on that number you did critizice

I didn´t say battery does not have losses, I said battery does not affect the consumption numbers of electric cars, same as ICE consumption numbers does not include how many litres of oil were necessary to process that petrol

You don't cease to underwhelm yourself. I did not criticize "that number". I criticized efficiency.
Your "logic" is so mind numbing: So it's not included in that value, let's pretend it doesn't exist.
Of course battery efficiency is relevant! It's an integral part of the car powertrain. Even your analogy is flawed. Charging discharging is the analog of sucking out the petrol from the tank or pumping in it. which is negligible of course.
The costs of mining, refining, transporting fuel is the analog of producing electricity and transporting it.

That´s true, I read somewhere the liquid can be charged or replaced, but reading their web they said the liquid is consumed

They call replacing the liquid "charging"

[Andres125sx]

Sorry but....

So it´s me who should think before gobbling up everything zealosly, but when I say energy density improves so tanks will be reduced during the years your reply is "it is worse"

You made that sentence wretchedly. "energy density does improve" is false anyways. Energy density doesn't just improve magically.

Maybe it will maybe it won't. Since this is just salts dissolved in water it probably won't .

What if you don´t manipulate my words?

I never said "magically", but energy density does improve, like it or not. Nanoflow cell improved energy density of flow cells by a factor of 5, and they didn´t use Harry Potter for that

As any other battery techonolgy, energy density does improve, so please stop negating the obvious

So it is a several years project, with recent license for road use, but for you it´s not real or viable

I didn't say it's not real. It is. But it doesn't seem to be viable.

So they have some cars on the roads, they have a licence, but for you it´s not viable. How stupid is this people, investing millions and wasting years on something wich is not viable

Again, negating the obvious, it is perfectly viable.

Please do not confuse your liking with reality

So that KWh/100km data does include losses while charging? I really doubt it so no, battery does not play a role on that number you did critizice

I didn´t say battery does not have losses, I said battery does not affect the consumption numbers of electric cars, same as ICE consumption numbers does not include how many litres of oil were necessary to process that petrol

You don't cease to underwhelm yourself. I did not criticize "that number". I criticized efficiency.
Your "logic" is so mind numbing: So it's not included in that value, let's pretend it doesn't exist.

Manipulating my words again?

It´s you who said that efficiency/consumption number is not impressive because it´s the same as Tesla model S. I only said the battery does not affect that number, as your statement looked like a critic to this technology, when this technology does not play a role on the number. What part you didn´t understand?

[mzso]

Nanoflow cell improved energy density of flow cells by a factor of 5, and they didn´t use Harry Potter for that

As any other battery techonolgy, energy density does improve, so please stop negating the obvious

Not it doesn't! Tell me how do you expect them improving energy density when it's just salt dissolved in water? Water dissolves whichever quantity it dissolves and not more. You expect magic it seems.

And you fancy believing energy density to just improve eternally for all battery technologies.

They didn't improve anything. It's the energy density of this technology. Li-ion is a different technology. Mixing up the development of one technology with replacing with something else is utterly foolish, and fallacious.

So they have some cars on the roads, they have a licence, but for you it´s not viable.

Research what the word "viable" means.

Manipulating my words again?

It's only you who did that. Well, it's inability to comprehend to be entirely correct

It´s you who said that efficiency/consumption number is not impressive because it´s the same as Tesla model S. I only said the battery does not affect that number, as your statement looked like a critic to this technology, when this technology does not play a role on the number. What part you didn't understand?

Nope. I said "They noted 20 kWh/100 km, roughly the same as a Tesla Model S". That's not criticizing the value. When I said "neglected to include the energy cost" I meant include in the article. Which is a convenient cheat, seeing as it's likely a lot less efficient to produce then just charging the battery.

[Andres125sx]

Nanoflow cell improved energy density of flow cells by a factor of 5, and they didn´t use Harry Potter for that

As any other battery techonolgy, energy density does improve, so please stop negating the obvious

Not it doesn't! Tell me how do you expect them improving energy density when it's just salt dissolved in water? Water dissolves whichever quantity it dissolves and not more. You expect magic it seems.

No, I´m expecting normal development, as with any other techonolgy

Flow batteries are far from simply salt dissolved in water as you stated

Some reading would help you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

And you fancy believing energy density to just improve eternally for all battery technologies.

Manipulating my words again?

Where did I say eternally Sir?

Expecting development is very different to expecting eternal development, please don´t try to mock my arguments manipulating what I said

They didn't improve anything. It's the energy density of this technology.

What technology? Redox? Zinc-polyiodide? Hybrid? Membraneless?

You need some reading before making such claims

So they have some cars on the roads, they have a licence, but for you it´s not viable.

Research what the word "viable" means.

Apply yourself please

It´s you who said that efficiency/consumption number is not impressive because it´s the same as Tesla model S. I only said the battery does not affect that number, as your statement looked like a critic to this technology, when this technology does not play a role on the number. What part you didn't understand?

Nope. I said "They noted 20 kWh/100 km, roughly the same as a Tesla Model S". That's not criticizing the value.

From some posts above...

It's also not efficient. Not surprising with the use of fuel cells and low voltage.
They noted 20 kWh/100 km Roughly the same as a Tesla Model S.

You literally said "it´s also not efficient", and continued saying it´s the same as Model S, as if it wasn´t efficient, when it´s around 3 times more efficent than any ICE

Heck you´re contradicting yourself here, you´re saying fuel cells are not efficient, but then say its efficiency is similar to cars with Li-Ion batteries. How is that?

Anycase what need big improvement is energy density and easy of use (fast charging or battery replacing), efficiency of electric setups is really high despite your comments. EVs does need higher range, at least double than they do today, and that obviously cannot be achieved improving efficiency as it is well above 50% so you simply cannot expect to double efficiency. That´s the reason their 20Kwh/100km number is similar to model S, you cannot expect EVs to use significantly less energy as they´re already using most energy (high efficiency).

The only way to improve EVs is improving energy density of batteries, or using some sort of easily replaceable battery. Flow batteries go for the later, they´ve never claimed higher efficiency or higher energy density than Li-Ion batteries

Also, as flow batteries are not flamable, not toxic and harmless, they can use all nooks in a car to store the liquid, unlike Li-ion batteries wich can be flammable on an accident so they need to not be exposed and even so they need some rigid protection, so basically you can use more weight in liquid for flow batteries than you can use for Lithium based batteries, and also the liquid can be stored anywhere in the car so you can use a lot more volume without sacrifizing any useful space in the car

[Andres125sx]

this is amazing, I´ve received a downvote for posting information about nanoflow batteries as I found it interesting (there´s nothing similar in the market), arguing "almost spam"

For the downvoter: I should not post any new info about new batteries on a thread about batteries technology? Thanks god I started that post saying "Quanum claims..."



edited to delete reply to deleted post

[godlameroso]

Advancements in batteries take on average 5 to 7 years to be implemented. 2 to 3 years for R & D, a year or two for prototyping, then another two years for production to begin. From the people I know, there's some nice developments that should be coming to market next year. Techwise the last part of this decade is pretty exciting, we're on the verge of having 400 w hrs/kg. Tesla is about to cut 20% off the weight of their 100kWh pack once the new generation Panasonic batteries become available.

[mzivtins]

Loving the idea and real world work behind the nanoFlowCell car!

Its cars like this and Tesla's stuff that will save the combustion engine.

If we could argue over 90% of cars in the world are just 'cars' to their owners, make all of them electric and brilliant, but lacking the pure romance of a beautiful combustion engine.#

Leave the rest of us to really enjoy the 'dirty' engines knowing that the problem of global warming through vehicles has been largely eliminated.

I am a massive fan of the rotary, i need these electric cars to start being the norm so that my 11mpg full bridge port MSP rotary is not longer THE problem, and can be loved as a work of art as special engines should be

Given the previous curve on dataset for the doubling of energy density in 10 years, can someone produce a graph with the intersect point at which battery will surpass current pump petroleum energy densities? would be nice to see

[godlameroso]

A rotary would work wonderfully with a MGU-H like device. Rotaries produce a lot of exhaust, thus can more easily drive a turbine than a piston engine could. And with an electric turbo you could increase the CR in the engine lowering pollutants at low rpm. You can also incorporate a small electric motor to get the car off the line.

This is another area that has some interesting developments, true you cannot really get huge gains from improvements in efficiency but there is an avenue that is becoming more and more apparent. Downsizing, both the inverters and electric motors are becoming more and more compact. That alone will save a considerable amount of weight, not to mention improve COG etc. Right now those components weigh a combined 230kg, it's still lower than an automotive power train, but 50kg can be shaved from that with what's available at the moment. All this starts adding up, 120kg from the pack, 50kg from the motors and inverters, less structural components due to lower weight can save another 6 or 7 kg. Next thing you know you've lowered the weight of the car by 200kg, so you have the same range but in a car that weighs under 1,900kg, which would probably increase range for the same capacity.

[Cold Fussion]

https://www.adaptnetwork.com/tech/first ... e-battery/

Any knowledgeable person want to comment on this technology?

[Just_a_fan]

If they can get a 700% increase in energy density, that's going to be a game changer. If such a battery could be commercially produced and it capable of use in vehicles, cars with very long rangers between charges will be possible. Think charging once a week for many people.