
‘Instantly rechargeable’ battery could change the future of electric automobiles - tacon
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-rechargeable-battery-could-change-the-future-of-electric-and-hybrid-automobiles.html
======
danans
> The greatest hurdle for drivers is the time commitment to keeping their cars
> fully charged.

For a large percentage of common use cases this is not an issue. EV drivers by
and large do other valuable things while their vehicles charge, like work and
sleep.

> Current electric cars need convenient locations built for charging ports.

This is only true for apartment dwellers (for now). People who live in houses
typically charge at home.

> Designing and building enough of these recharging stations requires massive
> infrastructure development, which means the energy distribution and storage
> system is being rebuilt at tremendous cost to accommodate the need for
> continual local battery recharge

> Users would be able to drop off the spent electrolytes at gas stations,
> which would then be sent in bulk to solar farms, wind turbine installations
> or hydroelectric plants for reconstitution or re-charging into the viable
> electrolyte and reused many times.

How is this fueling and distribution system cheaper or more efficient than the
grid plus a bunch of 240v/60a outlets, most of which are already available in
home garages. If instant refueling is a really a dire need for someone, they
can just get a plugin hybrid (i.e. Chevy Volt) and no new infrastructure
needed at all.

Edit: removed snarky words

~~~
ams6110
It's just ridiculous to claim that recharging time is not a huge downside to
EVs. If I have to drive more than the range of the car, I've now added hours
to my trip instead of the minutes a liquid fuel refill takes.

I often drive more than the range of a Tesla and certainly more than the range
of something like a Leaf, which is why I have not considered buying one.

~~~
greglindahl
It takes hours to supercharge a Tesla?

~~~
Spivak
According to Tesla it takes 1h15m for a full charge. If you don't happen to be
around a supercharger and have to use a 240v outlet you're looking at 9.5h for
a full charge.

~~~
sowbug
What's especially cool about this is that most homes in the U.S. have a 240v
outlet in or near the garage, meaning it's easy to recharge while visiting
friends or family.

~~~
azinman2
Is that really true? What for?

I'm remodeling a house and putting in 240 just for the dryer an an unusual
French range. Why would I need that in the garage? I certainly won't have that
long an extension cord.

~~~
stickfigure
For your lathe and vertical mill :-)

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
I'd rather have 208V (three phase) for that. Makes it easier to set up a
variable frequency drive.

------
ars
Quick summary: It's a flow battery[1]. Replace the liquid with fresh liquid
and you are recharged.

This one is different by not having a membrane.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery)

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes, and this bit might make you pause : _" 'We are at a stage in the
company’s growth that we are looking for additional financing to build large-
scale prototypes and subsequently manufacturing partners,' Cushman said."_

The whole "Breakthrough! Just add money!" thing is really tiresome not because
it would be wonderful if it was as simple as just adding money, but because so
very many people have abused it when they really had no idea at all about what
the issues were with their technology.

I like the concept of flow batteries, and have read a number of interesting
papers over the years on them. They solve a number of problems if you can get
them to work and the instant recharge is perhaps the best one.

That said, a very good flow battery demonstrator project would be a set of
solar panels (cheap these days), continually pumping electrolyte from a
reservoir and 'charging' it (inverting its oxidation reaction). Coupled to a
flow battery and a constant load.

If you can't build that, and show that by putting 'nX' load of solar cells in
the loop, and continually run the base load 24x7, then you've got the basis
for an actual breakthrough. Even doing it for a small "meaningless" load like
50 watts (1.2kWh / day), you will have demonstrated not only that your battery
works but that it can be combined in a system that currently requires
"previous generation" batteries.

And from that demonstrator you can make educated guesses about how much
maintenance would be required for a larger scale system, how well the system
performs 24x7, how to maintain it while it is operating, Etc.

 _Then_ you can say, for $X we estimate we could run a typical house off grid.
For $Y we estimate we could provide Z MWhr of base load. If you can't build
the 50W system though, it is unlikely you can build any system yet.

~~~
maxerickson
It sounds like their 0.5 watt system at least works:

[https://whova.com/embedded/subsession/icpma_201705/177114/17...](https://whova.com/embedded/subsession/icpma_201705/177114/177119/)

~~~
ChuckMcM
Perfect, Vanadium is only $28/kg[1]. 500W of solar cells is less than $1,000
these days. Saltwater and Methanol are also pretty cheap. Well you can charge
it, so if the charge rate is .1C you hook your solar panels to 1000 cells that
are charging ("charging" cells) and their electrolyte is then pumped into the
100 "load" cells for delivering load. But that only keeps you even, so 10,000
cells charging and filling the reservoir while 100 cells providing load. Damn
the laws of thermodynamics!

Still I would love to read how Dr. Cushman sees it working out.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/metals-vanadium-prices-
idUSL4...](http://www.reuters.com/article/metals-vanadium-prices-
idUSL4N1II3WY)

------
avs733
So maybe this is a biased perspective because I have an existing relationship
with Purdue...

Purdue, as with MIT, tends to oversell their research a little bit (a lot).
The difference is that MIT's overselling is believable whereas Purdue's wreaks
of insecurity and overstating as posturing. As others have noted on a
technical level...take it with a grain of salt. The current president (and ex-
Republicant governor) Mitch Daniels has been pushing a really hard narrative
of privatizing the university and its resources for corporate gain. He
neeeeeeds this type of thing, whether or not it pans out.

------
CoffeeDregs
Unless I'm misunderstanding how it works, some questions about this idea:

    
    
      * Presumably, you have to fully empty and then fill your tank?
        Over twice as long to refill as for gasoline/diesel.  (Still:
        not terrible.)
    
      * How do you get refunded for your partially used "fuel"?
        I generally refuel around a quarter of a tank.  In this case,
        that means I'm sending back 25% unused fuel.
        (Pump it out, analyze the mixture, provide credit?  Seems seriously game-able.)
    
      * Is the power output constant regardless of charge?  Can I get 20kW
        of output at 25% charge?

~~~
Armisael16
Extracting the fluid is already going to be an interesting task (it seems like
it'd probably be uneconomical to suck it out with a vacuum). I can see the
cars having separate input and output holes. With a clever design in the car
you could probably start refilling while you finish emptying.

A recharge should be pretty cheap. The national average cost for electricity
is ~13¢/kWh, so refilling a 100 kWh battery would only be $13 of energy. Other
costs - storage, maintenance, labor, land, etc - add to that, but you still
aren't out that much. It's possible that you just pay full price regardless,
since they are giving you totally fresh solution.

One of the most important things about flow batteries is that they're
basically invariant with charge and scale, so almost certainly (until you
really hit the dregs - you probably lose voltage at 4%).

------
nathan_f77
This sounds interesting. It got me thinking about some other ideas.

What about solar panels on the roof? I found this article [1], and Elon Musk
has said they'll "probably offer it as an option" [2].

I wonder how many extra miles you could get with that. If nothing else, it
would be nice to know that you could slowly recharge your battery if you get
stuck in the middle of nowhere.

Another idea - highways where you could drive while recharging. Maybe
something similar to train tracks, or an overhead wire. Or wireless power
transfer through the wheels, if that would be possible? (I don't think it is.)

[1] [https://thinkprogress.org/prius-solar-roof-
breakthrough-2b92...](https://thinkprogress.org/prius-solar-roof-
breakthrough-2b929f467061/)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/794575003446480896](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/794575003446480896)

~~~
Xeoncross
Solar panels charge really slowly compared to how much energy is needed to
move a car.

I'm probably totally wrong here, but if the whole car was solar panels I would
expect 600 watt to be generated. An electric car would need that for 0.8hrs or
so to move one mile (0.44 kWh/mile?) plus acceleration.

~~~
dangero
Still seems worth it for a slight efficiency gain plus the ability to gain
charge just by waiting if you run out of juice in the middle of nowhere.

~~~
tempestn
Another issue is that most people prefer to have a sunroof on their car.
(Ideally a large, panoramic one, as Teslas have.) Can't really do that with
solar panels.

------
aeleos
This is pretty cool. The general idea is that a gas station dispenses a water
and ethanol solution that acts as the electrolyte and provides energy for the
battery. And then recharging is done by reprocessing the electrolyte with
renewable energies. If this turns out to be a technology that can work well on
large scales, it could really be a game changer.

~~~
mikeash
Can you also recharge it in the battery with electricity, or do you have to go
to a special station? The ability to "fill up" at home is one of the great
advantages of EVs, although I realize a lot of people can't do that.

~~~
ekianjo
when it comes to traveling its a big drawback. You need quick charging
stations and tesla even admits the lines are getting long.

~~~
greglindahl
You're confusing the worst case with the average case -- maybe you should
instead ask Tesla owners if they're happy with long distance travel? The
overwhelming answer is "yes".

~~~
Spivak
Duh? The limitations of EVs are known before you buy the car. The people who
still choose to buy them is a strict subset of people who are okay with the
downsides.

Tesla owners are distinctly _not_ representative of the average person's
situation.

~~~
zaroth
mikeash was asking, can you _also_ charge it at home. It's a fair question,
since most of the time the overnight home charge is all you need, and even
more convenient than going to a gas station. So an EV that can do both is
great, an EV that _must_ be filled at a gas station only, that's actually a
tricky trade-off, and reasonable to assume a large number of current EV owners
would not make that trade-off.

In otherwords, if you're adaptable to home charging, then you _really want_
home charging. Makes perfect sense to also observe all current EV owners are
adaptable to home charging, by definition.

So strictly speaking adding it expands the market to different kinds of EV
owners who would treat it like a gas car, just with no direct emissions. If
you can add this feature without sacrificing anything else, I'd say that's a
very big deal.

I assume that in reality this tech is a decade of hard work away from even
being usable in an EV, so we'll never see it made.

------
Paul-ish
I am not very knowledgeable about battery technologies. How could you ditch
the membrane in a system that is expected to be moving and shaking? (eg a car)
Is it not important for the fluids to be separate?

------
mjevans
The problems that I see with this:

* Refueling requires hooking up and exchanging hazardous materials (fluids).

* This assumes that there's a single universal electrolyte fluid.

* Variability in fluid quality / consistency (across areas and batches) / return materials fraud are problems.

* The less sealed nature of the batteries is probably a safety hazard (increased crash/fire risk, etc).

I think that the public would be better served by standardizing on a few
/types/ of battery packs as physical interfaces, and having rapid 'tank
replacement' stations (robots) and leased battery packs.

Innovation in storage tech and/or picking a pack sized for the expected use
would allow for improvements and competition as well as changes in technology.

~~~
ethagknight
For 3/4 of your concerns, kinda like gasoline?

~~~
mjevans
Gasoline is mostly just flammable (and the vapor /slightly/ explosive).

We'd need to know more about what type of chemicals are used in this battery,
but glancing at what's involved for 'flow batteries' I'd make a /slightly/
educated guess that these would all be considered 'industrial' materials. You
might see a public bus using them, but I doubt it would be safe to allow the
average driver to self-refuel.

~~~
com2kid
> Gasoline is mostly just flammable (and the vapor /slightly/ explosive).

Gasoline is incredibly toxic, we are just accustom to it so we don't give it
much though.

~~~
Dylan16807
I wouldn't say 'incredibly' toxic. You can touch it for a while with no
negative effects, and you shouldn't ingest it.

------
pdimitar
I fully understand how such a team might run out of money -- it's not an easy
work after all, and takes time.

But honestly, for the last 10 or so years, I can't remember even ONE time that
I've heard about "revolutionary new battery technology" and it arriving on the
market soon after. Or ever.

Honestly, what happens to ALL those people? From genius 13-15 year old school
students to established scientists -- did anyone try to contact them, say, one
year later?

I am tempted to think that inventing a possible new revolutionary battery
technology is closely correlated to suddenly teleporting far away from Earth.

 _(Not sorry for sarcasm)_

~~~
Tade0
Some of them put their product on the market, but quietly.

One company I've been watching closely which at the same time has been
secretive to say the least: [http://www.amprius.com/](http://www.amprius.com/)
Their product is a li-ion battery with a silicon anode and apparently it
works, because they put it into an actual device:
[http://www.imei.info/phonedatabase/79823-bluboo-x550/](http://www.imei.info/phonedatabase/79823-bluboo-x550/)
(Note the massive 5Ah battery)

These guys generated quite a buzz back in the day:
[https://oxisenergy.com/](https://oxisenergy.com/) For now their product is
sort of disappointing, but the lone fact that they harnessed this new
chemistry is notable.

Last but not least IMO the most promising company among them all:
[https://www.eosenergystorage.com/](https://www.eosenergystorage.com/) I
remember when they were promising 6MWh/1MW stacks and 10k cycles instead of
the 4MWh/1MW stacks with a lifespan of 5k cycles they are offering now, but
the key thing is they are deploying them as we speak - actually, their total
production for 2017 was sold out at the start of this year.

These 1MWh stacks are made from 12kWh modules, which sooner or later will be
offered to individual customers.

~~~
pdimitar
Your knowledge is impressive. I am thankful for your sharing it!

From I gather from the websites, it seems these companies move to bigger
batteries and stuff like making more reliable power supplies for machinery --
maybe partially-off-the-grid homes as well?

Does that mean they had no luck in minituarizing their tech to make it viable
for smartphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth headsets or car audio systems --
generally a small consumer-grade battery?

I very clearly remember at least two separate cases of teenage Indian school
students that managed to demonstrate a prototype of a very quick-charging
battery that can hold 1000+ mAh, somewhere in the last 5 years. I am
absolutely sure I've read such news.

However, last I heard about them, some corporation gave them free scholarship
in an elite university... and after that, full radio-silence. Really makes me
suspicous, you know. What the hell happens to these people? Don't they still
want to revolutionize the world as they claimed they wanted to when they were
teenagers?

~~~
Tade0
> Does that mean they had no luck in minituarizing their tech to make it
> viable for smartphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth headsets or car audio
> systems -- generally a small consumer-grade battery?

In the case of OXIS their battery has pretty poor volumetric energy density,
so while it's light(about as dense as water) it takes too much space.

On the other hand the Eos's battery has great volumetric/gravimetric
parameters, but poor power density - to the point where if you short-circuit
it it's just going to seep current for four hours.

They were planning on putting these batteries in cars, but for that they would
need at least a 100kWh unit which would still require a small li-ion buffer
for short power bursts.

> However, last I heard about them, some corporation gave them free
> scholarship in an elite university... and after that, full radio-silence.
> Really makes me suspicous, you know. What the hell happens to these people?
> Don't they still want to revolutionize the world as they claimed they wanted
> to when they were teenagers?

Sometimes the research simply goes nowhere. Take for example the case of
Sakti3 and Dyson. Dyson bought their business, because it looked promising,
but after over a year of silence abandoned the patents that came with it.
Apparently the chemistry simply wasn't viable for commercial use.

------
calebsurfs
What is the energy density of a flow battery like this? It's hard to imagine
it is anywhere near gasoline or a lithium ion battery.

~~~
mjevans
Read the (currently) top post by Ars linking to the Wikipedia page.

There's a table of the currently known public chemistries near the bottom.

There are applications with better power density than Lithium based batteries
(at the electrodes), but I don't know about how an overall solution would
compare to a gasoline setup.

I think the only fair comparison in such a case would be to have a roughly
standard car design and compare complete solutions (currently common petrol /
diesel depending on vehicle size, hybrid (electric), full electric (batteries
/ 'flow batteries' of different types)).

------
samstave
meh, I care less about "instantly rechargable" as much as I do about
"instantly recyclable"

* what is lifecycle of batt?

* cost (not $ cost, resource cost?)

* slave-made?

how much trans-national exploitation occurs to produce one such batt?

------
peepopeep
They should run an ICO, get funded in minutes.

------
daotoad
Too bad the nifty techno-in-a-can synth diddling in the video drowns out the
inventor talking about his technology.

------
StavrosK
Oh look, another revolutionary battery technology.

~~~
Animats
Right. This is a flow battery/fuel cell; you change the liquids rather than
recharging it in place. The new feature is that this doesn't use a membrane to
separate the two liquids. They're immiscible and one is denser, so they stay
separate, in layers. Why this doesn't short out at the liquid interface isn't
clear.

There are commercial flow batteries that use membranes.[1] One uses zinc-iron.
The energy storage capacity is limited only by tank capacity, so you can fill
big tanks using solar power or wind and draw it out later. Typical system is
288 kW/960 kWh, and occupies 6 shipping containers.

[1] [https://www.viznenergy.com/product-
gs200/](https://www.viznenergy.com/product-gs200/)

~~~
ada1981
So they are pumped into the system in suspension and then settle into two
layers?

I'm having visions of the battery liquid sloshing around while driving.

This seems neat, though I think often academics solve one problem in a lab and
then imagine a whole string of other problems will easily be solved to get
their product to market.

The guy said the biggest problem is "man power". I'm skeptical of this claim.

They haven't built anything other than a table top demo -- I'd of liked to see
them build a unit that could power something significant. Stick one in a golf
cart at least.

But neat and inspiring nonetheless.

