
The Super Supercapacitor [video] - gilli
http://focusforwardfilms.com/contest/84/the-super-supercapacitor-brian-golden-davis
======
mpweiher
Very cool tech, and the manufacturing process looks doable as well. :-) Except
for us poor mac-heads, how is iTunes going to make me some Graphene??

I was a bit disappointed that there weren't any numbers in the film, so I
looked them up: [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122763-graphene-
supercapa...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122763-graphene-
supercapacitors-are-20-times-as-powerful-can-be-made-with-a-dvd-burner)

Energy density (storage capacity) does seem to be in range of Lithium Ion
batteries, better than some, but still around a factor 7 or so worse than the
highest density there (but slowest to discharge). Considering the extra effort
managing the batteries (Boeing, Tesla,...) you might just come out ahead
already.

On the other hand, Graphene apparently also makes Lithium-Ion batteries
significantly better: [http://www.extremetech.com/computing/105343-graphene-
improve...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/105343-graphene-improves-
lithium-ion-battery-capacity-and-recharge-rate-by-10x)

~~~
hwillis
There also exist hybrid supercapacitors, which use a chemical reaction but act
like capacitors. The best use of high-power capacitors is not as a
replacement, its as a supplement. Current technology is not quite sufficient,
but ideally it would mean that anything under a 20 minute drive could run off
just the capacitor, which could(with sufficient infrastructure) charge in
under a minute. It's not quite filling up on gas, but its closer.

I would like to see more investigation into turbine powered cars again, it may
be more feasible now to build a car like we build trains (A prime mover
generates energy for locomotive motors). I think the best way to transition
from gasoline to electric would be to take advantage of existing
infrastructure and make hot-swappable battery units. For medium drives you use
batteries, which can be switched in a garage with a capacitor bank for short
drives, or a unit with a small battery, a helicopter turbojet and a gas tank
(Which, ideally, would run at a higher efficiency than an ICE).

The reason we haven't used turbines in the past as far as I know is mostly the
start-up times and inability to idle. They don't really slow down, so sitting
in stop and go traffic you engine is basically still on full blast. Ameliorate
that with a battery and you're good to go, hopefully.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Chrysler made a turbine powered car in the Sixties. It would run on nearly
anything. Unfortunately, Chrysler never pushed it to mass production, then the
oil embargo put paid to that idea. But it was one of those beautiful futures
of the Sixties.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car>

~~~
rootedbox
Turbines are not fuel efficient for vehicles that are stationary as they idle
at 20k rpm. Also the exhaust is highly polluting.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Well, maybe not if you try to directly couple them to the tires. You might
have better luck if you try powering a generator to charge batteries. What do
you mean by "highly polluting"? Highly polluting compared to what?

~~~
HarryHirsch
They run extremely lean, consequently they produce nitrogen oxides like you
wouldn't believe.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
If you'd quote a source I might believe.

~~~
Someone
Probably not 100% convincing, but
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car>:

 _"Nevertheless, the turbine generated nitrogen oxides and the challenge of
limiting them proved an ongoing problem throughout development."_

If the amount produced were low, I doubt it _"proved an ongoing problem"_

Also:
[https://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/rlang/RenewElec/CEIC_White_Pap...](https://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/rlang/RenewElec/CEIC_White_Paper_on_Gas_Turbine_Research_for_Wind_Integration_3.pdf):

 _"Gas turbines operate best at full-power steady state conditions where they
are at their highest fuel and emissions efficiencies. Deviations away from
this tuned set point result in significant inefficiencies (particularly with
NOx emissions)"_

------
acd
Combine the graphene supercapacitor with Korea Advanced Institute of Science
and Technology OLEV and we would soon have clean transportation in the cities.
Imagine what that would do for air quality!

Say that you build inductive charging points in the lanes before stop lights.
The car/bus stops and charges the supercapitor. EV battery problem solved with
little extra weight needed by the car.

Sure a range extending hybrid car with a engine would be needed in the start
until more charging points would be available on the country side.

OLEV [http://txchnologist.com/post/43160353907/wireless-
electricit...](http://txchnologist.com/post/43160353907/wireless-electricity-
transmission-being-deployed-to) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsEYped_gZc>

~~~
jws
How about catapults, like an aircraft carrier, instead of inductive chargers?
You get all your kinetic energy to road speed plus you can regeneratively
charge to the limits of tire/road traction. You get the energy for at least
two stops and all you need is a little someplace on the bottom of the car for
the hook to engage. I'll bet intersections are more efficient too when the
intersection can fire off the waiting traffic in short order.

You'll need a little faith that the intersection software won't launch you
into cross traffic or pedestrians. And I'll bet you don't need red light
cameras anymore once there is the threat of having a Prius launched into your
driver's side door at 30mph.

~~~
mikeash
With some cheap ramps, you could get rid of the stops altogether. Have the
catapult run cross traffic up to the proper speed, and then jump over the
other street and land safely(?) on the other side.

I've long thought that the third dimension was woefully underused in smoothing
the flow of traffic through intersections.

~~~
lutusp
> I've long thought that the third dimension was woefully underused in
> smoothing the flow of traffic through intersections.

It's a simple matter of available space:

[http://atomictoasters.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/cloverl...](http://atomictoasters.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/cloverleaf.jpg)

------
glabifrons
Previous discussion (same video, on hackaday):
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4958875>

Another: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3723943>

And another: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3710054>

All 3 are linked to different articles.

------
brokentone
I got my dad an ultracapacitor flashlight
([http://www.ohgizmo.com/2008/11/10/ultracapacitor-
flashlight-...](http://www.ohgizmo.com/2008/11/10/ultracapacitor-flashlight-
recharges-in-90-seconds/)) a few years back and he loved it till it got
stolen. Really quick recharge time, decent "battery" life.

Interestingly this flashlight was discontinued, and I don't see any new ones
on 5.11 tactical's website. I wonder why?

I'm really interested in any increases in these types of technology, love to
see what comes of this.

------
ChuckMcM
At some point this will be pretty killer tech. One of my favorite applications
is to put large capacitors into the foundation of a house with solar panels.
Back when Maxell was showing of 4.2F car battery sized capacitors we did the
math and figured that a house with a 1500 sq ft base foot print could support
enough charge to carry it overnight, assuming that you were in a moderate
climate (California worked, Minnesota didn't). Once you can go 'off grid'
without battery maintenance worries it will become a lot more common I
suspect.

------
Egregore
In the video they show that graphene can be thrown away in compost bin safely,
how is it related to all the warnings we have about nanomaterials being
dangerous?

~~~
lutusp
The warnings about nanomaterials are about their applications, not their mere
existence. (The rational warnings, anyway.) Graphene is just a form of carbon,
like graphite or diamond, neither of which is thought to be particularly
hazardous.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene>

~~~
btilly
Not necessarily true. As
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-
nano...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-nanotube-
danger) explains, the impact that asbestos has on our lungs is a mechanical
process, and will be caused by any kind of hard object about the same size.

A lot of nanomaterials have the potential for creating dust in this size,
including ones made of pure carbon.

~~~
lutusp
Yes, but this isn't a property unique to nanomaterials -- it's a generic risk
common to all materials that can produce fine, abrasive dust. My point is this
doesn't represent a nanomaterial risk, it's an ordinary risk in which the
source happens to be a nanomaterial. Otherwise asbestos could be classed as a
nanomaterial risk after the fact.

Is lunar surface material a nanomaterial? It's certainly nasty stuff and it
gets everywhere. It's regarded as one of the primary risks in lunar
colonization. Does that make it a nanomaterial?

~~~
btilly
True, it isn't unique to nanomaterials. However nanomaterials and
nanomanufacturing have the prospect of creating a lot of long lasting dust on
this scale.

Also it has been the case with every round of technology that there are
unexpected risks that turn out to be important. It would be a surprise if
nanomaterials failed to bear as yet unknown risks. Particularly once you start
doping them with a variety of trace elements to get the properties that you
want.

------
achy
Having a better conducting, higher surface area electrode is a huge step. BUT
it doesn't really change the fact that a carbon based supercapacitor requires
an electrolyte to form the double layer, and all existing electrolytes have a
breakdown voltage below 5V. What we need is a better electrolyte. In
calculating energy storage in a capacitor, the energy increases exponentially
with voltage, while linearly with capacitance.

------
icoder
Very cool and batteries 2.0 would definitely change the world. But this vid is
a bit one sided. To charge something in an instance means a lot of electricity
has to run through the wire in a very short time.

Also, being able to quickly discharge might just be as much of a problem as it
is a blessing. Imagine all stored power inside a electric cars capacitor
system to discharge all at once..

~~~
learc83
>Imagine all stored power inside a electric cars capacitor system to discharge
all at once..

True, but right now we drive cars sitting on top gallons of gasoline that's
much more energy dense than supercapacitors.

------
DanWaterworth
I haven't seen any mention of the efficiency. Does anyone have any numbers
comparing a regular battery to a graphene supercapacitor?

~~~
lutusp
They won't know until they process this first step into a working device with
conductors and all the essential elements of a real storage device. But in
principle, a capacitor is a much better storage device than a battery -- no
chemical conversions, no limit to charge-discharge cycles, many similar
advantages.

~~~
meaty
They aren't magic. They have a relatively high self-discharge (or leakage
depending on how you measure it) compared to say Li-ion/NiMh cells which means
basically they piss capacity away slowly.

Don't expect your wonderful supercap car to actually be charged if you leave
it sitting there for a few hours.

~~~
lutusp
> They have a relatively high self-discharge (or leakage depending on how you
> measure it) compared to say Li-ion/NiMh cells which means basically they
> piss capacity away slowly.

Your claim is premature -- they haven't chosen an insulator yet. The graphene
sheets are the conducting surfaces, not the insulating layer. Your claims are
about the properties of the insulating layer between graphene sheets, which
hasn't been selected yet. It looks like this:

    
    
        Graphene (+) ---------------------------------
        Insulator ------------------------------------
        Graphene (-) ---------------------------------

~~~
meaty
Charge leaks through the conductors as well into the connecting circuits,
through the packaging and the adhesives. No insulator doesn't leak.

~~~
lutusp
Your remark applies to any storage device, including batteries. So it's not an
issue that sets supercapacitors apart.

~~~
meaty
That is correct and is my point.

~~~
lutusp
>> Your remark applies to any storage device, including batteries. So it's not
an issue that sets supercapacitors apart.

> That is correct and is my point.

No, your point was that supercapacitors discharge faster than batteries
because of leakage. But that's not true -- it depends on which insulating
material is selected, and that hasn't been decided yet.

Here is what you said: "They aren't magic. They have a relatively high self-
discharge (or leakage depending on how you measure it) compared to say Li-
ion/NiMh cells which means basically they piss capacity away slowly."

It's false. So I said so. Any questions?

------
Aardwolf
This is on a page about Films, Festivals and Directors. Is this fact or
fiction? Is this a film about a fictive discovery, or real?

------
gil
Shiny movie and very easy to understand but forgive me if I'm skeptic about
something without any supporting numbers or scientific background

------
ksec
Sounds like Cheap and Powerful, So what is stopping this from mass production?
My Phone could help with a charging time of less then a minutes!.

~~~
olympus
From what I understand, it's fairly expensive. It's tough to make a profit on
a phone when the battery costs $500. Costs are surely coming down but I think
we'll have to wait before it hits the mass markets. From the wikipedia page on
graphene [1]: "On the other hand, the price of epitaxial graphene on SiC is
dominated by the substrate price, which is approximately $100/cm2 as of 2009."

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Occurrence_and_product...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Occurrence_and_production)

~~~
chime
I would pay $500 extra if I could charge my phone in 1 minute. I would pay
$2000 extra if my laptop could do the same.

