But misses the point that Lithium itself is the huge stumbling block for EV adoption. Scaling Lithium production is difficult (hense the rapid rising Lithium prices), but worst of all, obtaining and processing Lithium on large industrial scale is horrifically destroying the environment. The problem with EV technology in general is that it is far worse as to consequences for the Earth than existing transportation technology - the exotic raw materials, due the mass environmental damage, and the huge carbon foot print that results in obtaining and processing these materials (and the inhumane human exploitation involved), results in a purported cure that is far worse than the status quo. And the status quo can be fixed by building modular Thorium reactors and synthesizing carbon neutral fuels of gasoline, diesel, and kerosene - such as the tech of Prometheus Fuels
Fantastic stuff! I hate the hit and run approach that a lot of UA-camrs take. You circling back is exactly why you are a step above the rest in my book.
The big takeaway for me is just the sheer amount of money and intensity battery development is getting now. It's impossible to predict what the next commercial chemistry will be, but as long as we're improving that's all that matters. (to be commercially viable, a battery chemistry needs to check a lot more boxes than just being more energy dense than current batteries!)
There will be multiple chemistries. We need cheap storage with great cycle life for home and grid applications, that basically can ignore gravimetric density, designs for EVs, that focus on charge speed, and gravimetric density, and even chemistries optimized for volumetric density.
Yes, and ironically the people who previously would have been best positioned to make these advances are the petroleum industry giants themselves. Instead of researching and developing battery and renewable energy solutions with their obscene profits, they chose to simply focus on finding and developing even more oil deposits, despite knowing the potential damage being wrought by the continued reliance on fossil fuels. To top it off, they funded entire propaganda armies of shock troops to propagate the lies. I’d really love to see many of the oil executives frog marched in chains into court to answer for what they’ve done, but unfortunately our political system permits the corruption of pretty much every process of our society and this will never happen.
Imagine the subsidies that were pissed away on fossil fuels going to renewables back when NASA first perfected solar power. Fifty years of more advancement leading to thirty years of completely phasing out fossils or not having any petroleum wars! Imagine now drafting managers instead of having lying crooks campaigning!
I imagine that in less than ten years we'll see a dramatic improvement in battery technology and in solar panel technology, which will free us all from The Grid.
You're the only channel I watch for this sort of stuff. You're much more realistic in your videos so I feel like I am actually getting more informed instead of getting dumber by watching.
5 years ago, the then head of Siemens eAircraft told me after a presentation at my university that he expects major breakthroughs in the battery space within the first half of this decade just based on the sheer amounts of money and talent being thrown at the problem. It would appear he was right and we are finally seeing something tangible leave the labs for the first time since Goodenough. Sounds good enough for me.
Great video Dave, I always appreciate the way you talk calmly and generally present the positive and negative aspects of an emerging technology, not trying to overhype it for clicks. Let’s hope this pans out as we need every possible chance to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and preferably also vastly reduce our mining of rare earths.
Would be nice if cities used better insulation to reduce energy demand and line the sides of roads with native plants and trees to reduce flooding heat wind pollution and co2 as well as reduce energy demand in buildings as well.
@@smashingturnips5353 Who cares? I guess you? Not me. As long as I can understand someone, I don't care. Then again, I'm not an expert on the English language. I make mistakes often when writing.
Great points. It illustrates how important election of thoughtful and reliable local and state representatives is. If you elect greedy gits you get substandard public services.
@@thetalkingbear "democracy and elections" are just a illusion. No matter what, the people who you put in power will become corrupt (if they weren't already) and just take bribes from big corporations to push laws that will only benefit them
That's wonderful and all but we still need energy. Moving heating and transport to electricity will reduce the amount of energy we need but it will increase the amount of electricity we need. Yes, we can reduce that with insulation and more mass transit, but there will still need to be more electricity. In addition, if we want to use renewables like wind and solar - which are the only two rapidly growing renewable sources that will have an impact on the climate - we need storage. So, your point is fine but we still need to work on storage options. It's not either/or, it's "as many as possible."
I learn so much from Just Have a Think. (OK, sometimes I learn that I understand better, but still don't understand much. You can only expect so much from someone who majored in economics.) Of all the geek-focused channels that I regularly watch, including many other excellent ones, this has become my favorite. Aside from the engineering information, I often (mostly) leave with a more optimistic view of the future.
Thank you for another wonderful video! And thank you for returning to the subject of Lithium Sulphur batteries. I love it when you come back to the technologies you talked about earlier to see what progress has been made. Lyten's battery sure does sound impressive. I hope they can "get a wiggle on" as you said, and start turning out batteries that can be used in the real world as soon as possible.
Who remembers the 1st red LED? That has led ,over 50 years, to every house lit by the white LED. These things take time but always worth it in the end. Transport sure looks like the next big change with these advancements. Thanks for the update Dave.
Thank you for going over the issues with some of the previous battery breakthroughs that you mentioned in your previous videos. This was informative and grounded as always.
I remember doing my college degree senior seminar in Chemistry on Graphene inclusion compounds back in 1978. Amazing how far the technology has come since then.
@@mikesommers1068 My seminar paper was on Graphite inclusion compounds. Not Graphene. my apologies. The process was capturing chemical compounds between to layers of Graphite.
Phew, this is a real step forward. Thank you Dave for bringing this into a more public domain. Incidentally, the mere mention of Buckminsterfullerines gets me excited because I knew about the discoveries at Sussex University and taped the later BBC Horizon programme which covered the then, very recent history. It was brilliant work and exciting stuff. And now the buckyball may have found a proper home. Buckyball - so called because the organic chemistry of the C60 exactly follows the precise alignment of pentagons and hexagons of a 1970s football. [Soccer ball for USA]. Plus, the architect Buckminster Fuller's designs also closely followed C60's alignment. C60 [and C70] somewhat rejuvenated organic chemistry in the 1980s.
@@JustHaveaThink No problem Dave. I got my dates wrong. It was the late 1980s a nd the programme was produced in the 1990s. See if you can track down the Horizon programme. There's a few Profs and even students who became famous off the back of that research. It's called BBC Horizon 1996 Molecules With Sunglasses.
Lots of activity around sulfur battery chemistries these days. One thing to be cautious of and things I've seen in the industry: 1) To my knowledge no one has produced a commercially viable lithium metal vs sulfur cell capable of anywhere close to 1000 cycles. If they have then they're omitting certain facts like extremely thin loadings and/processes that are cost prohibitive (like high temp depositions, sintering, chemical treatments, ect...). 100-200 cycles (to 80% of original capacity) is the range some are achieving at loadings (mg/cm^2) appropriate for real world applications and this is currently considered a very good starting point. Most are still struggling below the 100 cycle range. 2) Electrolyte consumption is a problem across the board. The cells are chewing through 2-20x the electrolyte volumes typically put into an NCM+Graphite cell. This needs to be solved first and foremost. 3) MANY companies are reporting core VED/GED values and conveniently ommitting packaging, electrolyte, and tab weights in their calculations; in other words models that are on paper and not demonstrated in a live cell. This isn't new however as I've seen the same thing across the silicon startups. 4) Graphine isn't magic: bending the SP2 hybridized bonds kills some of the conductivity so large sheets are impractical and can block ion flow. Some interesting niches have come up with using small sheets to coat particles with to reduce material migration. Remains to be seen whether these emulsion coating methods are cost effective however. - Battery Scientist
Dave, it's not the size of your brain that determines whether you can understand something or not, it's your willingness to try to get a grasp on some of the concepts that matters. Too many think, "Science or maths? Won't be able to understand that!" So they don't try and thus never understand it. You don't shy away from tacking difficult concepts and presenting them at an understandable level. Thank you!
not everything mentioned here is actually accurate though, alot of these are pipe dreams, like the failed "gravity batteries" for grid power storage. or the mirror solar arrays focusing on a single point, that was supposed be 40% more efficient than traditional pv solar arrays. both of those were critical failures that he hyped up last year and the year prior.
@@dustinherk8124 Hype is something someone like techtube scammer "Undecided with Matt ferrell" specialise in. Where as Dave usually chose his words carefully and are hesitant to draw conclusions. What wording did he use in those videos exactly that made it "hype"?
I am glad they finally start to research batteries intensively. Just imagine where we could have been today, if folks 100 years ago wouldn´t have decided on combustion engines but on electrical engines for vehicles and started researching then.
magnetic field solver software and supercomputers all had to happen to get to 200HP frying pan sized motors, and ability to virtually prototype everything.
You truly do the best reporting on this UA-cam space of emerging green technologies. Very grounded, researched and cautious about any statement. Thank you.
I hope Lyten succeed, but for the moment I will only believe it when I see it. As tesla is demonstrating with the 4680 batteries that stay within relatively known chemistry, working in the lab and small scale production is easy, scaling up to large scale production is HARD.
i hope so to! but it seems a lot of what they are saying could be a little too good to be true! be interesting to see the results when they reach market and how they really compare!
True. But it’s our moral obligation to make this happen ASAP. Sooner we get away from nickel and cobalt the better. Especially cobalt given how depressing that situation is
Please keep these vids coming, they help me so much to not getting "my brain melted" trying to keep up with technical progress and economical implications . . . 🙏🏼 just the next door layman 😉
The next big step forward will be adding this with sodium batteries for house and grid storage. The cost savings alone would be a game changer let alone made from common elements found around the world. Not only do we not have to relay on china - we could make these batteries ANYwhere in the world. 30% from soidum and another 15% from sulfur with another 10 to 15% from not having to ship them around the world would mean a battery at half the current cost today. At half the cost - it would make going solar a no brainer at this point. The battery is the last hold on for a lot of people.
@@Dayanto I believe known lithium resource are around 30 million tonnes and much of it is geothermal in the Upper Rhine and Alsace requiring little water, and zero-carbon extraction and refinement processes.
Sometimes, the best technology doesn't always win, a lot of it depends on cost to make and cost of product to consumers. Considering how many battery techs are being worked on around the world, I suspect the ones that deliver at the lowest price point whiles using abundance of resources around the world will likely fare better than the more advanced tech that will likely cost an arm and a leg to buy. At the end of the day, the tech that has an impact in any field is the tech that can be massed manufactured, whiles using common materials and is affordable by the masses. We always hear about these revolutionary breakthroughs with tech but it's one thing getting something to work in a lab and another to get it to market, it's also another thing to get it to market cheaply enough that most consumers can afford to buy it and that is what you need for any tech to be a game changer. Until then, it might as well be a phantom in a lab that might happen someday and probably will cost an arm and a leg to buy anyway. But honestly, you know what excites me the most about what's going on with battery tech? It's not so much the tech it's self, but that there are so many different ideas being worked on around the world to store energy, I find that more interesting, because with so many ideas from around the world, that will put a lot of downwards pressure on the price point of all the different battery techs, any tech that is quite exclusive to any one company by patents or what not, will likely have a high price point, especially if the tech is good, so as good as the tech could be, the impact on the world will be small until pressure from other rival techs push the price down.
Great video. Really informative graphics explaining the workings of the lithium sulphur battery and the polysulfide issues. Lyten are definitely one step ahead of the pursuing pack, with Theion in Germany and LiS Energy in Australia offering similar solutions in the process of getting their respective small scale production facilities up and running. GM and LG have had a falling out over a battery gigafactory, maybe Lyten can step in as the replacement battery technology - given their CEO Dan Cook previously worked at GM. As an avid but older cyclist, a battery for an E-bike that is about a third of the weight of current batteries would be brilliant.
4:27 An idea to make these things more clear: instead of listing different storage tech as having wh/g and wh/L, where you keep the volume and mass static and start listing watt hour numbers with a text filled interlude, convert them to be g/wh and L/wh, with a watt-hour value chosen to make the volume and mass values familiar quantities to the audience. Once you have that you can put the different entries on a bar chart and sort by volume or mass, smallest value on top, according to whichever one makes more sense in the current application being discussed. This also can help highlight how there is value in using different technologies in different situations as well as make comparisons easier to see by doing things such as marking the current dominant tech using a line marking it's performance value to make it clear where other tech exceeded or falls short of the current tech. Charts like this with derived values (like volume or mass per levelized cost of storage) can further help highlight advantages and similar charts can be helpful when comparing other technologies such as power generation.
Had to watch that THREE times before I - sort of - understood it! God alone knows how you start from those research papers and end up with a digestible video - it must be exhausting. As interesting as this is - a better alternative to Lithium Ion - I think the important aspect of this is that battery technology, which seemed to be stalled for a while, now seems to be following the usual trend of tech to get better, lighter, cheaper, etc. So, not only could we be looking at phones that don't burst into flame and have to be charged every night, and cars that can be charged in something like the time it would have taken to refuel them, but, if batteries also get lighter, then electric powered aviation truly becomes feasible at medium distances.
Honestly, I don’t mind videos on new or up and coming battery tech that has a ways to go before it reaches production. What is frustrating to me is the silence later. Like, if there’s problems that arise, and I’m sure they will, it would be nice to hear about them. Just hearing about new battery after new battery just leaves me wondering “well, what happened to the last one?”
Brilliant. Exciting times ahead. Amazing what is done when the demand is there to improve and increase the properties of current tech to make this work for all aspects of this revolution we're going through. In a decade or so this type of technology will be the norm.
My new low maintenance (hydrogen/oxy/carbon) design gets 9MJ Kg-1 storage capacity (2500 Wh/kg), is cheap to replace, recyclable, makes plants greener and uses existing infrastructure. I like to call it a diesel generator.
An order of magnitude improvement over current batteries is coming. Among other things it will make converting ICE cars a feasible alternative with good range and acceptable weight.
thank you for addressing the "it's right around the corner" phenomenon. To be fair, it's all over UA-cam and the internet in general, and I'm as much a sucker for optimistic stories as the next guy/environmentally-conscious consumer. That said, I'm in my seventh decade on this planet and honestly, I don't expect to be around long enough to see anything that disrupts the megacorps' firm grasp on what gets produced and who gets to make money off of it (I include venture capital and the PRC in that category.) still, while I've given up on the Grimm Bros., I do enjoy hearing (and fantasizing) about innovative technologies with the potential to change our world for the better; I just hope I'm around to see just one of them.
I love how you cover chemistry without covering chemistry! In all seriousness, batteries are nothing more than engineered chemistry. This is a great example of why supporting STEM studies is so incredibly important to all of us, even when we, as individuals, are not STEM workers ourselves. Every modern technology is completely based on STEM based knowledge and research. We also need to stop worshiping the researchers/teams that make the breakthroughs that move us forward. We need to pay homage to ALL researchers. Each and every one pursuing a viable path of knowledge is making our future better. The vast majority will find dead ends, but knowing about those dead ends is critical. All research and all development as a fundamental process is just like figuring out how to make a viable light bulb.
"Testing showed that the battery could be charged at twice the rated voltage of the cell for over 4 hours." This is real interesting. It'd be nice to know what the battery behaves like in this situation. Like, does it block most of the current, like a diode or high value resistor, or does it pass current freely through itself.
Always great videos, thanks! Would add that imo what's needed from Climate UA-camrs is a tsunami of successful electrification stories. Particularly scaled communities built with climate in mind. Too many folks sitting on the sidelines waiting for 'perfection'. There's many many good products. At the end of the day there's only one statistic that matters. Is PPM greenhouse gases pollution rising, steady ,falling. Again thanks for your work!
I have a colleague who works in solid battery technology and they say that they regularly outperform Li-on batteries but the issue is the commercialisation, and that's the real issue.
Dave - outstanding channel and we support it. I have to say your "new" lighting is somewhat dimmer and has me reaching for the settings on my monitor. Are you aware or has anyone else noticed? Would appreciate a little more brightness
@4.45 . Not all NMC compositions have a specific capacity of ~150 mAh/g. Different compositions have got different specific capacities. NMC 111: ~140-150 mAh/g NMC 532: ~ 160-180 mAh/g NMC 622: ~ 170-190 mAh/g NMC 811: ~ 180-220 mAh/g
Canadian oil production generates Sulphur as a byproduct when scrubbing H2S2O4. We are always looking for new uses. Our solar and wind fields need the batteries to balance out the power spikes.
Sounds great! Based on this, if Tesla replaced their model 3 batteries with this then they’d have an effective range of 700+ miles per charge and have an estimated lifespan of 1million miles. I’m hopeful for these batteries to give an excellent challenge to traditional batteries today.
And that also seems to suggest that a not-full 80% rapid charge (still a good range) would be notably faster as well. I've got a 2018 Outback with 57k miles on it that I love, and I live in apartments, so it makes no sense at all for me to think about transitioning in the next few years: I'm hoping by the time it makes sense for a worn car (though I expect legislation will force things faster due to carrot/stick costs long before my car is that worn) that the infrastructure will be worked out, along with truly rapid charges, etc. These Lyten batteries sound like a far better direction compared to current chemistries, but again, mass production and costs are a consideration to get worked out. Also, I'd not expect any new car to be equipped with enough of these for a 700+ mile range: instead, closer to 400 miles to make a lighter, smaller, cheaper, more efficient car: by reducing the size even without reducing the weight, aerodynamic efficiency can be increased, and that's most of the energy cost at highway speeds in most scenarios. The lighter and smaller you can make the rest of the car, the lower the battery capacity, size and costs needs to be.
Very informative video as always. Thank you very much. I need to score some of these for my off-road E scooter 🤣 I wonder if they're looking for a beta tester.🤔
Got it. Graphene is more dense, safer and distributes heat more efficiently, but "Graphene is and remains for now, extremely expensive to produce on mass". We can all see geopolitics could make using rare-earth metals, like lithium, problematic. Just imagine how battery storage could allow us to store solar and wind power for use later rather than tell wind farms to shut down because they're producing TOO much energy.
Always look forward to your posts! There are very few channels that are really insightful into their subjects, as you always are. I'll admit to enjoying watching, "Undecided Matt Ferrel" to gain an American perspective too, but you two are head and shoulders above the rest! I say that as an old fogey that graduated as a mechanical engineer >50 years ago, when things were very different! 🤔😉
And finally a bit of good news. Bless you for everything you put out, the reports on the negative, and frankly, depressing stories is equally as important if not more so, but they never fail to leave me in a state of existential anxiety.
The promise of "better" battery technology in the near future is part of the reason we are not rushing to buy an EV right. But the other primary reason has to do with the very limited kilometers we drive our gas powered car (we are retired) and the high cost of EV’s. There are not enough savings from NOT paying for gasoline & related maintenance to offset the much higher monthly lease payments. I know people who only drive about 5,000 km/year. The savings to switch are not there for those of who are on limited budgets and don’t drive a lot.
This is encouraging and very well presented, as always. The application will determine which battery technology is optimum. It's great to have all these new variations on the market.
Every year since the last 10 or so years, I hear of at *least* one, if not *multiple* battery technologies with amazing sounding properties, only to then never ever hear of it again. Sulfur and Carbon are very commonly mentioned. I've also heard Manganese and Iron among others. It seems like all of these technologies are lacking in at least one of the many features batteries are supposed to be good at: - high energy density - quick chargeability - long storage times (slow to naturally lose charge) - long-term reliability (high number of charge circles) - low weight - safe (no burning or explosions) - non-hazardous (if they break, ideally that shouldn't be a natural disaster) - low cost - easy to manufacture at scale - manufacturable with reasonably low ecological troubles (ideally the production should be carbon neutral and not poison or render toxic large swaths of land) - passive (no energy is needed to keep the storage up) Some of these goals are probably more important than others, and some can at the very least be used for specialized roles. - For instance, the iron-batteries I mentioned above mostly just fail the low weight and high energy density. If they break, they basically turn into fertilizer. Which isn't without issues - you may get algal blooms or similar issues - but it's certainly less of an issue than causing barren wastelands for decades to come. So those kinds are mainly meant as large (ship container-sized) energy stores that can be immensely helpful as emergency power supply as well as for balancing out energy spikes. They aren't ever gonna get used in cars or smartphones though. Either way, practically never have I heard of any of this new tech getting used at scale. Hopefully, this changes soon.
Great video! Those personal E-VTOL craft should be everywhere by 2025. I really hope that "Everything, for Everyone, All the Time" economy comes to pass by about then. Imagine getting paid to go to an interpersonal communication class for Self-Actualization cultivation!
It's literally impossible. There's a limited supply of rare real estate locations. Such as beachfront property, Riverside property, closer to Town versus further from town, on the sides of ski slopes, Etc. There's a limited supply of premium food products. There's a limited supply of rare artwork, paintings, collectible items, first row seats at concerts, first night seats at plays and operas. There's even a limited supply of certain medicines and the largest size television screens and so on. Money is just a way of controlling the allocation of who gets these items. And the more people there are, the higher prices will get because if there's only 21 of a certain model of television in the world or only 715 doses of a particular medicine in the world then they can't go to everyone. However, we can ensure that everyone's basic food, transportation, medical, housing, Etc needs are met. It's not necessary for people to die for the lack of a $4 a month pill that literally cost $0.10 to make.
@@macmcleod1188 This is a classic Malthusian argument. Proven wrong by Ricardo. A long time ago. There was a time when only the very rich could afford a car. Beachfront property can be created. As has been done in Dubai, and elsewhere by China. Focusing on these kinds of rationales to justify the status quo or an incremental adjustment is short and long term self defeating. It worsens the standard of living for everyone except the invidiously greedy. They could care less for self actualization; being preoccupied with juvenile schadenfreude'.
I appreciate lampshading the whole "everyone, including me, is forever going on about 'revolutionary battery technologies' that will change things forever" at the beginning. We will see. Some of them will make a difference at some point somewhere of course. But there's just so many to keep track of.
Graphite is 372 mAh / g. This is a theoretical value that is calculated using Faraday’s law of electrolysis: Q/m (mAh/g) = (Fz / M) / 3.6 where F is Faraday’s number in As/mol, z is the number of electrons at play relative to the target material and M is the molar mass of the target material in the delithiated state. 3.6 is there for your unit conversions. You can test that out with graphite. M = 12.01 g/ mol and z = 1/6 (this is from LiC6 in the lithiated state). Notice that since lithium is monovalent, the number of electrons = the number of lithiums. This will give you 371.93 mAh/g for the lithiated phase of LiC6.
You can make a table of about 12 critical performance characteristics for a battery, benchmark the typical Li-ion numbers, and then show how most "new and better" battery tech has blanks and question marks for much of the table. That would put things in better perspective.
What makes reporting on battery technology interesting? An honest treatment of how development and production problems will be resolved. That's what we have in this video. Thanks.
What it is really competing against is LiFePO4 (LFP) lithium chemistries, not so much NMC or NCA. That presents a bit of a lower bar for the sulfur battery in terms of energy density, but a much higher bar for cycle life and safety. The LiFePO4 base chemistry as you can see has no nickel or cobalt either. Ultimately, though, all of these chemistries tend to get tweaked to improve performance or cycle life... for example, LFP batteries are tweaked with Manganese and sometimes also Nickel. But a key point with LFP is that those expensive or ethically dubious elements are not required by the base chemistry. The Sulfur batteries would almost certainly have to be seriously tweaked as well to get up to the same level of safety and cycle life.
Greg Offer of Imperial College is the person in the UK who is the expert in LiS battery technology. One LiS battery firm in the UK, called OXIS energy has gone bust, so it appears that it's too difficult to deal with on a commercial scale.
Great vid, as always and this new development with Lyten is interesting stuff - especially for aviation. How about the Graphene Aluminum batteries from Ausi Start up GMG? No Lithium needed, along with the rest of the unwanted and the majority of their graphene comes from the separation of Methane into carbon (for Graphene production), and Hydrogen to use as energy production. This tech not only has not met its full potential, it also repurposes materials used to harm the atmosphere into useful materials that prevent more harm. A win, win, win. Energy density is less, though no cooling is required - so like for like with a lithium set up, a car would have the same energy density in the pack per weight and the power density is off the charts - with charge times in under 10 minutes, as apposed to 30-90 minutes or so. 🤔😉🙃
Thx interesting tto see these, how has it developed over last few month videos. That Lyten can really show what they claim will get visible when one or more of the big battery, energy or transport vehicle companies jump in.
Great video. Very promising tech. If they can nail this a car could go 3 to 4 times as far of a single charge and be lighter too. Going from 300 to 500 kilometers to over 1500 is amazing and would massively reduce the arguments against ev’s
This channel is really inspiring. I enyoy the way that you're showing us the way that we can push our technological boundaries in order to have a sustaintable future. I am trying to create a channel with the same approach, but in spanish. English as a language has a tone of ongoing information on youtube, and i feel that spanish as a language has a lot to do in that sense. Thank you for your great work!
The real breakthrough will be when we find en effective way to use PV/wind energy to convert atmospheric CO2 + H2O into CH4 + O2 and N2 + H2O into NH3 + O2, so we could close the atmospheric carbon and nitrogen cycle with use of solar energy without pumping fossil carbon into air. CH4 and NH3 could be used then as energy source or raw materials in the fertilizer, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. CH4 can be easily converted into heavier hydrocarbons and NH3 can be easily converted into ammonium nitrate, both being easier to store for long months and years.
Just a trite observation. I read somewhere that Bucky Balls are also found in the soot from a burning candle. I'm not sure if it was the B60 or some other BB.
Thanks, Dave. You're doing a tremendous job of condensing this info for the general public
But misses the point that Lithium itself is the huge stumbling block for EV adoption.
Scaling Lithium production is difficult (hense the rapid rising Lithium prices), but worst of all, obtaining and processing Lithium on large industrial scale is horrifically destroying the environment.
The problem with EV technology in general is that it is far worse as to consequences for the Earth than existing transportation technology - the exotic raw materials, due the mass environmental damage, and the huge carbon foot print that results in obtaining and processing these materials (and the inhumane human exploitation involved), results in a purported cure that is far worse than the status quo.
And the status quo can be fixed by building modular Thorium reactors and synthesizing carbon neutral fuels of gasoline, diesel, and kerosene - such as the tech of Prometheus Fuels
Fantastic stuff! I hate the hit and run approach that a lot of UA-camrs take. You circling back is exactly why you are a step above the rest in my book.
The big takeaway for me is just the sheer amount of money and intensity battery development is getting now. It's impossible to predict what the next commercial chemistry will be, but as long as we're improving that's all that matters. (to be commercially viable, a battery chemistry needs to check a lot more boxes than just being more energy dense than current batteries!)
There will be multiple chemistries. We need cheap storage with great cycle life for home and grid applications, that basically can ignore gravimetric density, designs for EVs, that focus on charge speed, and gravimetric density, and even chemistries optimized for volumetric density.
Yes, and ironically the people who previously would have been best positioned to make these advances are the petroleum industry giants themselves. Instead of researching and developing battery and renewable energy solutions with their obscene profits, they chose to simply focus on finding and developing even more oil deposits, despite knowing the potential damage being wrought by the continued reliance on fossil fuels. To top it off, they funded entire propaganda armies of shock troops to propagate the lies. I’d really love to see many of the oil executives frog marched in chains into court to answer for what they’ve done, but unfortunately our political system permits the corruption of pretty much every process of our society and this will never happen.
Imagine the subsidies that were pissed away on fossil fuels going to renewables back when NASA first perfected solar power. Fifty years of more advancement leading to thirty years of completely phasing out fossils or not having any petroleum wars! Imagine now drafting managers instead of having lying crooks campaigning!
I imagine that in less than ten years we'll see a dramatic improvement in battery technology and in solar panel technology, which will free us all from The Grid.
Maybe this will drive us to different chemistries targeted to each application.
You're the only channel I watch for this sort of stuff. You're much more realistic in your videos so I feel like I am actually getting more informed instead of getting dumber by watching.
You're opening minute comments are spot on I did nothing but nod my head
Can't wait to watch the rest of this video now
5 years ago, the then head of Siemens eAircraft told me after a presentation at my university that he expects major breakthroughs in the battery space within the first half of this decade just based on the sheer amounts of money and talent being thrown at the problem. It would appear he was right and we are finally seeing something tangible leave the labs for the first time since Goodenough. Sounds good enough for me.
Great video Dave, I always appreciate the way you talk calmly and generally present the positive and negative aspects of an emerging technology, not trying to overhype it for clicks. Let’s hope this pans out as we need every possible chance to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and preferably also vastly reduce our mining of rare earths.
Cheers Randy. Much appreciated :-)
@@JustHaveaThink There are other comments that needed a reply before this irrelevant comment..
Would be nice if cities used better insulation to reduce energy demand and line the sides of roads with native plants and trees to reduce flooding heat wind pollution and co2 as well as reduce energy demand in buildings as well.
@@smashingturnips5353 ,,..!!??
@@smashingturnips5353 Who cares? I guess you? Not me. As long as I can understand someone, I don't care. Then again, I'm not an expert on the English language. I make mistakes often when writing.
Great points. It illustrates how important election of thoughtful and reliable local and state representatives is. If you elect greedy gits you get substandard public services.
@@thetalkingbear "democracy and elections" are just a illusion. No matter what, the people who you put in power will become corrupt (if they weren't already) and just take bribes from big corporations to push laws that will only benefit them
That's wonderful and all but we still need energy. Moving heating and transport to electricity will reduce the amount of energy we need but it will increase the amount of electricity we need. Yes, we can reduce that with insulation and more mass transit, but there will still need to be more electricity.
In addition, if we want to use renewables like wind and solar - which are the only two rapidly growing renewable sources that will have an impact on the climate - we need storage.
So, your point is fine but we still need to work on storage options. It's not either/or, it's "as many as possible."
I learn so much from Just Have a Think. (OK, sometimes I learn that I understand better, but still don't understand much. You can only expect so much from someone who majored in economics.) Of all the geek-focused channels that I regularly watch, including many other excellent ones, this has become my favorite. Aside from the engineering information, I often (mostly) leave with a more optimistic view of the future.
Do you watch Real Engineering? That latest F-35 video with its animations was something else....🤤
Thanks Reid. I really appreciate your feedback :-)
@@movement2contact It's another of my favorite UA-cam channels, and yes the recent video on the F-35 was particularly outstanding.
@@movement2contact Yes I do. Another great UA-cam channel.
Thank you for another wonderful video! And thank you for returning to the subject of Lithium Sulphur batteries. I love it when you come back to the technologies you talked about earlier to see what progress has been made.
Lyten's battery sure does sound impressive. I hope they can "get a wiggle on" as you said, and start turning out batteries that can be used in the real world as soon as possible.
rumor has it theyre working with apple car
Typo in description. More of more.
Keep up the great work!
Who remembers the 1st red LED? That has led ,over 50 years, to every house lit by the white LED. These things take time but always worth it in the end. Transport sure looks like the next big change with these advancements. Thanks for the update Dave.
I remember early red LED's that were sold at Radio Shack stores in the USA back around 1971 or maybe 1972 or so.
Thank you for going over the issues with some of the previous battery breakthroughs that you mentioned in your previous videos. This was informative and grounded as always.
I remember doing my college degree senior seminar in Chemistry on Graphene inclusion compounds back in 1978. Amazing how far the technology has come since then.
Well you were ahead of your time! Graphene was only discovered in 2004!
@@mikesommers1068 My seminar paper was on Graphite inclusion compounds. Not Graphene. my apologies. The process was capturing chemical compounds between to layers of Graphite.
Phew, this is a real step forward. Thank you Dave for bringing this into a more public domain. Incidentally, the mere mention of Buckminsterfullerines gets me excited because I knew about the discoveries at Sussex University and taped the later BBC Horizon programme which covered the then, very recent history. It was brilliant work and exciting stuff. And now the buckyball may have found a proper home. Buckyball - so called because the organic chemistry of the C60 exactly follows the precise alignment of pentagons and hexagons of a 1970s football. [Soccer ball for USA]. Plus, the architect Buckminster Fuller's designs also closely followed C60's alignment. C60 [and C70] somewhat rejuvenated organic chemistry in the 1980s.
Cheers Andy. That's very intriguing additional info :-)
@@JustHaveaThink No problem Dave. I got my dates wrong. It was the late 1980s a nd the programme was produced in the 1990s. See if you can track down the Horizon programme. There's a few Profs and even students who became famous off the back of that research. It's called BBC Horizon 1996 Molecules With Sunglasses.
Some would even say that God invented Soccer
Lots of activity around sulfur battery chemistries these days.
One thing to be cautious of and things I've seen in the industry:
1) To my knowledge no one has produced a commercially viable lithium metal vs sulfur cell capable of anywhere close to 1000 cycles. If they have then they're omitting certain facts like extremely thin loadings and/processes that are cost prohibitive (like high temp depositions, sintering, chemical treatments, ect...). 100-200 cycles (to 80% of original capacity) is the range some are achieving at loadings (mg/cm^2) appropriate for real world applications and this is currently considered a very good starting point. Most are still struggling below the 100 cycle range.
2) Electrolyte consumption is a problem across the board. The cells are chewing through 2-20x the electrolyte volumes typically put into an NCM+Graphite cell. This needs to be solved first and foremost.
3) MANY companies are reporting core VED/GED values and conveniently ommitting packaging, electrolyte, and tab weights in their calculations; in other words models that are on paper and not demonstrated in a live cell. This isn't new however as I've seen the same thing across the silicon startups.
4) Graphine isn't magic: bending the SP2 hybridized bonds kills some of the conductivity so large sheets are impractical and can block ion flow. Some interesting niches have come up with using small sheets to coat particles with to reduce material migration. Remains to be seen whether these emulsion coating methods are cost effective however.
- Battery Scientist
Dave, it's not the size of your brain that determines whether you can understand something or not, it's your willingness to try to get a grasp on some of the concepts that matters. Too many think, "Science or maths? Won't be able to understand that!" So they don't try and thus never understand it. You don't shy away from tacking difficult concepts and presenting them at an understandable level. Thank you!
Thanks Clive. I really appreciate your encouragement :-)
This channel keeps me informed. Appreciate all of the people working to bring it together. 👍🏽
not everything mentioned here is actually accurate though, alot of these are pipe dreams, like the failed "gravity batteries" for grid power storage. or the mirror solar arrays focusing on a single point, that was supposed be 40% more efficient than traditional pv solar arrays. both of those were critical failures that he hyped up last year and the year prior.
@@dustinherk8124 Hype is something someone like techtube scammer "Undecided with Matt ferrell" specialise in. Where as Dave usually chose his words carefully and are hesitant to draw conclusions. What wording did he use in those videos exactly that made it "hype"?
@@LordZordid you expect me to remember what his exact wording in 2021 and 2022, was?
@@dustinherk8124 I do believe you that he might have presented it too favorably. But I was just wondering.
I am glad they finally start to research batteries intensively. Just imagine where we could have been today, if folks 100 years ago wouldn´t have decided on combustion engines but on electrical engines for vehicles and started researching then.
No electrical grids back then
@@glenn726 Yeah and no infrastracture for gasoline either. But it was built
@@glenn726 we had electrical grids in Australia 100 years ago. We'd had them for 35 years at that point.
Electric cars existed back then but gasoline was pushed by the oil companies.
magnetic field solver software and supercomputers all had to happen to get to 200HP frying pan sized motors, and ability to virtually prototype everything.
You truly do the best reporting on this UA-cam space of emerging green technologies. Very grounded, researched and cautious about any statement.
Thank you.
Great video, Dave, really interesting developments!
Cheers Martin
Very exciting prospects ahead!!
What a fabulous channel.. May you please continue to provide such excellent information.
I hope Lyten succeed, but for the moment I will only believe it when I see it. As tesla is demonstrating with the 4680 batteries that stay within relatively known chemistry, working in the lab and small scale production is easy, scaling up to large scale production is HARD.
i hope so to! but it seems a lot of what they are saying could be a little too good to be true! be interesting to see the results when they reach market and how they really compare!
True. But it’s our moral obligation to make this happen ASAP. Sooner we get away from nickel and cobalt the better. Especially cobalt given how depressing that situation is
This is my favorite channel with stuff I don’t understand
Thanks for coming back to topics to check on their progress. It helps sort the good ideas from the bad.
I am fascinated by lithium ion battery and chemistry related to it!!✌
Woohoo! Yet another game changer technology! I'm so excited!
Please keep these vids coming, they help me so much to not getting "my brain melted" trying to keep up with technical progress and economical implications . . .
🙏🏼
just the next door layman
😉
The next big step forward will be adding this with sodium batteries for house and grid storage. The cost savings alone would be a game changer let alone made from common elements found around the world. Not only do we not have to relay on china - we could make these batteries ANYwhere in the world. 30% from soidum and another 15% from sulfur with another 10 to 15% from not having to ship them around the world would mean a battery at half the current cost today. At half the cost - it would make going solar a no brainer at this point. The battery is the last hold on for a lot of people.
This is a "game changer"!! Seriously exciting to see all the new battery improvements! Sodium Ion looks good as no need for lithium!
Sodium is safer and better in cold temperatures than lithium, and of course much cheaper. They will be mass produced in China this year 2023.
Wasn't it sodium ion that the vitorians used?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We'll see. Scepticism is best way to treat battery chem annoucements.
Sodium-sulfur seems like the obvious next step. Great energy density, and no rare metals (lithium/nickel/cobalt). The research looks promising.
@@Dayanto I believe known lithium resource are around 30 million tonnes and much of it is geothermal in the Upper Rhine and Alsace requiring little water, and zero-carbon extraction and refinement processes.
11:05 ... "If that's true then it would make the lithium sulfur battery extremely competitive"..... love the understatement.
Another very important progress in battery development, thx for sharing!👍
Thanks for the video. The promise of mass production is always a couple years away for batteries and EV models. I hope I live long enough to see it :)
Always like stretching my brain every week...cheers
The problem with Lithium sulfur technology is that it uses Lithium. And the industry has to get away from its dependence on Lithium.
Seriously, Yay! for "free of ads and sponsorship messages".
Thanks!
Cheers Tim. Much appreciated 😊
Sometimes, the best technology doesn't always win, a lot of it depends on cost to make and cost of product to consumers.
Considering how many battery techs are being worked on around the world, I suspect the ones that deliver at the lowest price point whiles using abundance of resources around the world will likely fare better than the more advanced tech that will likely cost an arm and a leg to buy.
At the end of the day, the tech that has an impact in any field is the tech that can be massed manufactured, whiles using common materials and is affordable by the masses.
We always hear about these revolutionary breakthroughs with tech but it's one thing getting something to work in a lab and another to get it to market, it's also another thing to get it to market cheaply enough that most consumers can afford to buy it and that is what you need for any tech to be a game changer.
Until then, it might as well be a phantom in a lab that might happen someday and probably will cost an arm and a leg to buy anyway.
But honestly, you know what excites me the most about what's going on with battery tech? It's not so much the tech it's self, but that there are so many different ideas being worked on around the world to store energy, I find that more interesting, because with so many ideas from around the world, that will put a lot of downwards pressure on the price point of all the different battery techs, any tech that is quite exclusive to any one company by patents or what not, will likely have a high price point, especially if the tech is good, so as good as the tech could be, the impact on the world will be small until pressure from other rival techs push the price down.
I really love the animations! also your style of "storytelling"!
Great video. Really informative graphics explaining the workings of the lithium sulphur battery and the polysulfide issues. Lyten are definitely one step ahead of the pursuing pack, with Theion in Germany and LiS Energy in Australia offering similar solutions in the process of getting their respective small scale production facilities up and running. GM and LG have had a falling out over a battery gigafactory, maybe Lyten can step in as the replacement battery technology - given their CEO Dan Cook previously worked at GM.
As an avid but older cyclist, a battery for an E-bike that is about a third of the weight of current batteries would be brilliant.
4:27 An idea to make these things more clear: instead of listing different storage tech as having wh/g and wh/L, where you keep the volume and mass static and start listing watt hour numbers with a text filled interlude, convert them to be g/wh and L/wh, with a watt-hour value chosen to make the volume and mass values familiar quantities to the audience. Once you have that you can put the different entries on a bar chart and sort by volume or mass, smallest value on top, according to whichever one makes more sense in the current application being discussed. This also can help highlight how there is value in using different technologies in different situations as well as make comparisons easier to see by doing things such as marking the current dominant tech using a line marking it's performance value to make it clear where other tech exceeded or falls short of the current tech. Charts like this with derived values (like volume or mass per levelized cost of storage) can further help highlight advantages and similar charts can be helpful when comparing other technologies such as power generation.
Had to watch that THREE times before I - sort of - understood it! God alone knows how you start from those research papers and end up with a digestible video - it must be exhausting.
As interesting as this is - a better alternative to Lithium Ion - I think the important aspect of this is that battery technology, which seemed to be stalled for a while, now seems to be following the usual trend of tech to get better, lighter, cheaper, etc. So, not only could we be looking at phones that don't burst into flame and have to be charged every night, and cars that can be charged in something like the time it would have taken to refuel them, but, if batteries also get lighter, then electric powered aviation truly becomes feasible at medium distances.
Honestly, I don’t mind videos on new or up and coming battery tech that has a ways to go before it reaches production.
What is frustrating to me is the silence later. Like, if there’s problems that arise, and I’m sure they will, it would be nice to hear about them. Just hearing about new battery after new battery just leaves me wondering “well, what happened to the last one?”
Was it last year he covered one containing iron and common dirt?
/s
Yep!
Brilliant. Exciting times ahead. Amazing what is done when the demand is there to improve and increase the properties of current tech to make this work for all aspects of this revolution we're going through. In a decade or so this type of technology will be the norm.
My new low maintenance (hydrogen/oxy/carbon) design gets 9MJ Kg-1 storage capacity (2500 Wh/kg), is cheap to replace, recyclable, makes plants greener and uses existing infrastructure.
I like to call it a diesel generator.
Good to see you. I love this channel.
Glad you enjoy it!
Great video nicely delivered
An order of magnitude improvement over current batteries is coming. Among other things it will make converting ICE cars a feasible alternative with good range and acceptable weight.
Glad to see you've got your thermals on Dave. The weather's lovely here on Fuerteventura! Ooops!
thank you for addressing the "it's right around the corner" phenomenon. To be fair, it's all over UA-cam and the internet in general, and I'm as much a sucker for optimistic stories as the next guy/environmentally-conscious consumer.
That said, I'm in my seventh decade on this planet and honestly, I don't expect to be around long enough to see anything that disrupts the megacorps' firm grasp on what gets produced and who gets to make money off of it (I include venture capital and the PRC in that category.)
still, while I've given up on the Grimm Bros., I do enjoy hearing (and fantasizing) about innovative technologies with the potential to change our world for the better; I just hope I'm around to see just one of them.
I love how you cover chemistry without covering chemistry!
In all seriousness, batteries are nothing more than engineered chemistry. This is a great example of why supporting STEM studies is so incredibly important to all of us, even when we, as individuals, are not STEM workers ourselves.
Every modern technology is completely based on STEM based knowledge and research. We also need to stop worshiping the researchers/teams that make the breakthroughs that move us forward. We need to pay homage to ALL researchers. Each and every one pursuing a viable path of knowledge is making our future better. The vast majority will find dead ends, but knowing about those dead ends is critical.
All research and all development as a fundamental process is just like figuring out how to make a viable light bulb.
"Testing showed that the battery could be charged at twice the rated voltage of the cell for over 4 hours."
This is real interesting. It'd be nice to know what the battery behaves like in this situation. Like, does it block most of the current, like a diode or high value resistor, or does it pass current freely through itself.
Smiles, you are a lot brighter than a lay man. Love your work mate, thanks.
Always great videos, thanks! Would add that imo what's needed from Climate UA-camrs is a tsunami of successful electrification stories. Particularly scaled communities built with climate in mind. Too many folks sitting on the sidelines waiting for 'perfection'. There's many many good products. At the end of the day there's only one statistic that matters. Is PPM greenhouse gases pollution rising, steady ,falling. Again thanks for your work!
I have a colleague who works in solid battery technology and they say that they regularly outperform Li-on batteries but the issue is the commercialisation, and that's the real issue.
Yet another thought provoking video! Thank you!
Dave - outstanding channel and we support it. I have to say your "new" lighting is somewhat dimmer and has me reaching for the settings on my monitor. Are you aware or has anyone else noticed? Would appreciate a little more brightness
Yeah, the All notification is pretty essential to more than rarely seeing notifications.
@4.45 . Not all NMC compositions have a specific capacity of ~150 mAh/g. Different compositions have got different specific capacities.
NMC 111: ~140-150 mAh/g
NMC 532: ~ 160-180 mAh/g
NMC 622: ~ 170-190 mAh/g
NMC 811: ~ 180-220 mAh/g
Thank you David.
Canadian oil production generates Sulphur as a byproduct when scrubbing H2S2O4. We are always looking for new uses. Our solar and wind fields need the batteries to balance out the power spikes.
Sounds great! Based on this, if Tesla replaced their model 3 batteries with this then they’d have an effective range of 700+ miles per charge and have an estimated lifespan of 1million miles.
I’m hopeful for these batteries to give an excellent challenge to traditional batteries today.
And that also seems to suggest that a not-full 80% rapid charge (still a good range) would be notably faster as well.
I've got a 2018 Outback with 57k miles on it that I love, and I live in apartments, so it makes no sense at all for me to think about transitioning in the next few years: I'm hoping by the time it makes sense for a worn car (though I expect legislation will force things faster due to carrot/stick costs long before my car is that worn) that the infrastructure will be worked out, along with truly rapid charges, etc.
These Lyten batteries sound like a far better direction compared to current chemistries, but again, mass production and costs are a consideration to get worked out.
Also, I'd not expect any new car to be equipped with enough of these for a 700+ mile range: instead, closer to 400 miles to make a lighter, smaller, cheaper, more efficient car: by reducing the size even without reducing the weight, aerodynamic efficiency can be increased, and that's most of the energy cost at highway speeds in most scenarios. The lighter and smaller you can make the rest of the car, the lower the battery capacity, size and costs needs to be.
Very informative video as always.
Thank you very much.
I need to score some of these for my off-road E scooter 🤣
I wonder if they're looking for a beta tester.🤔
Got it. Graphene is more dense, safer and distributes heat more efficiently, but "Graphene is and remains for now, extremely expensive to produce on mass". We can all see geopolitics could make using rare-earth metals, like lithium, problematic. Just imagine how battery storage could allow us to store solar and wind power for use later rather than tell wind farms to shut down because they're producing TOO much energy.
Always look forward to your posts! There are very few channels that are really insightful into their subjects, as you always are. I'll admit to enjoying watching, "Undecided Matt Ferrel" to gain an American perspective too, but you two are head and shoulders above the rest! I say that as an old fogey that graduated as a mechanical engineer >50 years ago, when things were very different! 🤔😉
Some promising chemistry there. It will be great to see the next generation of batteries hit the market in a few years. Thanks!
Thanks for helping me think 😎💙
And finally a bit of good news. Bless you for everything you put out, the reports on the negative, and frankly, depressing stories is equally as important if not more so, but they never fail to leave me in a state of existential anxiety.
Thank you Dave!
Thanks for the video, great job!
Thank you clever people. You empower us all.
The promise of "better" battery technology in the near future is part of the reason we are not rushing to buy an EV right. But the other primary reason has to do with the very limited kilometers we drive our gas powered car (we are retired) and the high cost of EV’s. There are not enough savings from NOT paying for gasoline & related maintenance to offset the much higher monthly lease payments. I know people who only drive about 5,000 km/year. The savings to switch are not there for those of who are on limited budgets and don’t drive a lot.
This is encouraging and very well presented, as always. The application will determine which battery technology is optimum. It's great to have all these new variations on the market.
Please continue to make numeric comparisons visual (tabular, etc) for ND's and others. Thanks, excellent work
Every year since the last 10 or so years, I hear of at *least* one, if not *multiple* battery technologies with amazing sounding properties, only to then never ever hear of it again.
Sulfur and Carbon are very commonly mentioned. I've also heard Manganese and Iron among others.
It seems like all of these technologies are lacking in at least one of the many features batteries are supposed to be good at:
- high energy density
- quick chargeability
- long storage times (slow to naturally lose charge)
- long-term reliability (high number of charge circles)
- low weight
- safe (no burning or explosions)
- non-hazardous (if they break, ideally that shouldn't be a natural disaster)
- low cost
- easy to manufacture at scale
- manufacturable with reasonably low ecological troubles (ideally the production should be carbon neutral and not poison or render toxic large swaths of land)
- passive (no energy is needed to keep the storage up)
Some of these goals are probably more important than others, and some can at the very least be used for specialized roles. - For instance, the iron-batteries I mentioned above mostly just fail the low weight and high energy density. If they break, they basically turn into fertilizer. Which isn't without issues - you may get algal blooms or similar issues - but it's certainly less of an issue than causing barren wastelands for decades to come.
So those kinds are mainly meant as large (ship container-sized) energy stores that can be immensely helpful as emergency power supply as well as for balancing out energy spikes. They aren't ever gonna get used in cars or smartphones though.
Either way, practically never have I heard of any of this new tech getting used at scale. Hopefully, this changes soon.
Very good, recyceble is good to.
And if it can work perfect within 0-100% charge, and not 20-80%.
@@Myrslokstok right, yeah, just so many functions / properties most people never think about
Excellent research as always.
Great video! Those personal E-VTOL craft should be everywhere by 2025. I really hope that "Everything, for Everyone, All the Time" economy comes to pass by about then. Imagine getting paid to go to an interpersonal communication class for Self-Actualization cultivation!
2025 is 23 months away. E-VTOL probably won't be "everywhere" by then.
It's literally impossible. There's a limited supply of rare real estate locations. Such as beachfront property, Riverside property, closer to Town versus further from town, on the sides of ski slopes, Etc.
There's a limited supply of premium food products.
There's a limited supply of rare artwork, paintings, collectible items, first row seats at concerts, first night seats at plays and operas.
There's even a limited supply of certain medicines and the largest size television screens and so on.
Money is just a way of controlling the allocation of who gets these items. And the more people there are, the higher prices will get because if there's only 21 of a certain model of television in the world or only 715 doses of a particular medicine in the world then they can't go to everyone.
However, we can ensure that everyone's basic food, transportation, medical, housing, Etc needs are met. It's not necessary for people to die for the lack of a $4 a month pill that literally cost $0.10 to make.
@@macmcleod1188 This is a classic Malthusian argument. Proven wrong by Ricardo. A long time ago. There was a time when only the very rich could afford a car. Beachfront property can be created. As has been done in Dubai, and elsewhere by China. Focusing on these kinds of rationales to justify the status quo or an incremental adjustment is short and long term self defeating. It worsens the standard of living for everyone except the invidiously greedy. They could care less for self actualization; being preoccupied with juvenile schadenfreude'.
@@clavo3352 I'm sorry I didn't realize you were out of touch with reality. Please do go on fantasizing.
@@macmcleod1188 And yet More juvenile.
I appreciate lampshading the whole "everyone, including me, is forever going on about 'revolutionary battery technologies' that will change things forever" at the beginning. We will see. Some of them will make a difference at some point somewhere of course. But there's just so many to keep track of.
Graphite is 372 mAh / g. This is a theoretical value that is calculated using Faraday’s law of electrolysis: Q/m (mAh/g) = (Fz / M) / 3.6 where F is Faraday’s number in As/mol, z is the number of electrons at play relative to the target material and M is the molar mass of the target material in the delithiated state. 3.6 is there for your unit conversions. You can test that out with graphite. M = 12.01 g/ mol and z = 1/6 (this is from LiC6 in the lithiated state). Notice that since lithium is monovalent, the number of electrons = the number of lithiums. This will give you 371.93 mAh/g for the lithiated phase of LiC6.
I Really Enjoyed Today's Video And I Thought That This Video Was Very Interesting
Nice and promising...now comes the hard part, actual production at massive scale
You can make a table of about 12 critical performance characteristics for a battery, benchmark the typical Li-ion numbers, and then show how most "new and better" battery tech has blanks and question marks for much of the table. That would put things in better perspective.
What makes reporting on battery technology interesting? An honest treatment of how development and production problems will be resolved. That's what we have in this video. Thanks.
What it is really competing against is LiFePO4 (LFP) lithium chemistries, not so much NMC or NCA. That presents a bit of a lower bar for the sulfur battery in terms of energy density, but a much higher bar for cycle life and safety. The LiFePO4 base chemistry as you can see has no nickel or cobalt either. Ultimately, though, all of these chemistries tend to get tweaked to improve performance or cycle life... for example, LFP batteries are tweaked with Manganese and sometimes also Nickel. But a key point with LFP is that those expensive or ethically dubious elements are not required by the base chemistry.
The Sulfur batteries would almost certainly have to be seriously tweaked as well to get up to the same level of safety and cycle life.
I have nothing to say really, but I appreciate your content, and wish to help with the yt-algorithms.
I guess we need to look out for Lyten's IPO.
Greg Offer of Imperial College is the person in the UK who is the expert in LiS battery technology. One LiS battery firm in the UK, called OXIS energy has gone bust, so it appears that it's too difficult to deal with on a commercial scale.
This is great, Have you Reported on Carbon-Oxygen batteries? Hemp Matrix Capacitor Batteries? Thanks for your work!
Great vid, as always and this new development with Lyten is interesting stuff - especially for aviation.
How about the Graphene Aluminum batteries from Ausi Start up GMG?
No Lithium needed, along with the rest of the unwanted and the majority of their graphene comes from the separation of Methane into carbon (for Graphene production), and Hydrogen to use as energy production.
This tech not only has not met its full potential, it also repurposes materials used to harm the atmosphere into useful materials that prevent more harm.
A win, win, win.
Energy density is less, though no cooling is required - so like for like with a lithium set up, a car would have the same energy density in the pack per weight and the power density is off the charts - with charge times in under 10 minutes, as apposed to 30-90 minutes or so.
🤔😉🙃
Thanks for another great video!
Thx interesting tto see these, how has it developed over last few month videos.
That Lyten can really show what they claim will get visible when one or more of the big battery, energy or transport vehicle companies jump in.
Great video. Very promising tech. If they can nail this a car could go 3 to 4 times as far of a single charge and be lighter too. Going from 300 to 500 kilometers to over 1500 is amazing and would massively reduce the arguments against ev’s
Great video
This channel is really inspiring. I enyoy the way that you're showing us the way that we can push our technological boundaries in order to have a sustaintable future. I am trying to create a channel with the same approach, but in spanish. English as a language has a tone of ongoing information on youtube, and i feel that spanish as a language has a lot to do in that sense. Thank you for your great work!
FunFact:
a dead battery
weighs Exactly the same as
a charged battery
I'm thinking perpetual motion machine
and Batteries with the Power of the Suns !
nice to hear something positive for a change ;-)
The real breakthrough will be when we find en effective way to use PV/wind energy to convert atmospheric CO2 + H2O into CH4 + O2 and N2 + H2O into NH3 + O2, so we could close the atmospheric carbon and nitrogen cycle with use of solar energy without pumping fossil carbon into air. CH4 and NH3 could be used then as energy source or raw materials in the fertilizer, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. CH4 can be easily converted into heavier hydrocarbons and NH3 can be easily converted into ammonium nitrate, both being easier to store for long months and years.
Lets go Lyten.
More competition will drive innovation.
Just a trite observation. I read somewhere that Bucky Balls are also found in the soot from a burning candle. I'm not sure if it was the B60 or some other BB.