
Why not use Zinc–bromine batteries for cars? - Pica_soO
The charged medium is liquid, so recharging equates a liquid exchange in 5 Minutes? Are these so heavy?
======
philipkglass
The cycle life at 100% depth of discharge may be better for zinc-bromine
batteries than for lithium ion batteries. That's an advantage. Zinc and
bromine are available on a larger scale than lithium and cobalt. That's a
potential future advantage.

The energy density of zinc-bromine batteries is lower than lithium ion
batteries. The cost per unit of storage is higher than lithium ion batteries.
Liquid bromine is much more acutely toxic and corrosive than the hydrocarbon
fuels we let consumers pump themselves. In the battery's charged state, the
zinc is a solid, so you can't recharge a car with such a battery simply by
pumping fluids.

Zinc bromine batteries have some advantages that might make them viable for
large scale grid tied storage in stationary applications. The disadvantages
mean that they are unlikely to be adopted in passenger transportation
applications.

------
DrScump
I remember this concept being the cover story in an issue of _Popular Science_
back in the 1970s -- a "gas station" where you exchange electrolytes.

philipkglass' comment brings up one risk: what happens if the batteries are
breached in a severe collision?

