
Tesla researcher is 'excited' about new battery tech developed by the Army - laurex
https://electrek.co/2019/05/13/tesla-battery-researcher-new-battery-tech-army/
======
boh
For those who believe governments only serve to stifle innovation, please take
heed to this counter example(before the Silicon Valley PR machine recasts the
research as a work of its own genius).

~~~
dexen
It's a fine sentiment. Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the
(US) Navy. Which is to be expected, as navies traditionally were big into
crypto.

The military has long history of both doing their own research (logistics &
management, and cryptography being good examples), running research institutes
with civilian employees (as it seems to be in this case), and contracting out
R&D to run-of-the-mill civilian institutions (half of the SV on a good day).

It's worth remembering that the military in typical country is set up with
certain similarities to free market economy: it negotiates budget with the
"customer" (government), it has several major branches that fiercely compete
with each other (typically air force, army, navy; US also rolls with marines
as a separate branch), and there are vertical & lateral transfers of employees
at times. Lastly, there's always the competing militaris abroad ;-)

Heck, one of common view of the Cold War is that of NATO bankrupting the
Soviet block via military arms race.

~~~
umvi
> Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy.

But is it ethical to use military-developed innovations?

~~~
dexen
Yes, it is ethical to put military research to the best use we can. Whether
logistical systems, trauma medicine, personal weapons, or encryption, all
those improve our efficiency, our safety, our leisure, and our privacy.

Wars aside, the military is a place where practical problems are encountered
daily, and the solutions battle-tested at scale. It's reasonably safety-minded
and cost-aware (spicy anecdotes aside).

Moreover, it's helps a lot when the research isn't walled off by stringent IP
regulations.

------
jimrandomh
There is a tradition among mainstream press outlets of taking battery-related
research, misreading it in a way that makes it sound more impressive than it
really is, and publishing breathless articles about how revolutionary it is.
This article continues the tradition.

The Electrek article claims that the researchers made a cell with "an
impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg". But the Nature paper says that they
made a cell with "460 watt-hours per kilogram of total composite electrode".
These are not the same; a cell contains other components besides the
electrode: the anode, the electrolyte, and the package. The paper doesn't
state the overall energy density (at least in the abstract), but it will
surely be much lower when other components are counted.

------
detritus
It is an interesting advance (and one far beyond my technical ken) but the
main point that stood out for me when this was first posted on HN a few days
back is the so far untested longetivity of the system, with it so far only
having been tested for 150 dis/charge cycles. This doesn't at all preclude
improvement, but the military's needs and budgets don't necessitate very long-
life uses, unlike consumer items - especially expensive battery on wheels
items like cars.

Here's hoping though!

~~~
WhompingWindows
It may be that the new batteries simply haven't had the time to be thoroughly
tested. My great uncle worked on batteries in the 60's and we are still
running experiments on them today to examine their life cycle.

------
jorblumesea
It's crazy how much technology comes from government investment, yet people
continue to assert that private industry can somehow fill the gaps. With
quarterly cycles being what they are, the only one thinking long term is the
govt. They're the only ones who engage in fundamental scientific research or
even near term research and are responsible for much of the innovation that
private industry loves to claim.

~~~
germinalphrase
Marianna Mazzucato did a nice talk at the Long Now Foundation about this exact
point.

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02014/mar/24/entrepreneurial-
sta...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02014/mar/24/entrepreneurial-state-
debunking-private-vs-public-sector-myths/)

------
jokoon
> impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg

How does it compare with the best current battery technology?

If it's significant enough that's big news, I'm sure this might trigger some
intense attempts of industrial spying.

Also I wonder why it's always the military and public funding making real
progress in research, almost never private ventures.

~~~
paulirwin
Note that 460 Wh/kg is the density of the electrode, not the cell as a whole
which given the aqueous electrolyte would be less but still higher than
existing technologies.

However, the key point is not just the density, but the density combined with
the materials used, and (perhaps most importantly) safety.

I think it's worth comparing to LiFePO4 as a baseline. It has the lowest
density of common li-ion batteries (110Wh/kg), but it is very safe as it does
not have the likelihood of thermal runaway. Other battery types have higher
densities, like li-poly and other li-ions, but they can have thermal runaway
if damaged or overcharged requiring battery management systems to prevent
fire. (With LiFePO4, you also need a BMS, but mainly to prevent permanent
damage to the battery to protect your investment, rather than fire.)

From my understanding, if this can be commercially viable (as it should be
with the lower material cost), this will achieve high density, low cost, and
thermal safety, which puts it in a league of its own.

~~~
ksec
> From my understanding, if this can be commercially viable (as it should be
> with the lower material cost), this will achieve high density, low cost, and
> thermal safety, which puts it in a league of its own.

And it would be perfect if we could get cycles beyond the current ~500 range.

I would be happy if we could get one within next 5 years.

------
nathan_long
Can anyone give context on these statements?

> When combined with their previous development of “water-in-salt electrolytes
> (WiSE)”, they claim that they can achieve an impressive energy density of
> 460 Wh/Kg.

> Some soldiers have to carry between 15-25 pounds of batteries and this
> technology could significantly lower that weight

What's the energy density of current batteries and how much lighter would
equivalent batteries be using this technology?

> while preserving safety due to the aqueous nature of the electrolyte

What does this mean - why could the new battery be safer?

~~~
mont
Keep in mind that when a general hears that a soldier can loose 10 lbs of
batteries, in his mind that means 10 more pounds of bullets.

~~~
throw20102010
Some generals would certainly think that. To them, they are thinking of battle
rattle as a knapsack problem where soldiers have demonstrated the ability to
carry 80+ lbs of weight and 80+ liters of pack size. 10 more lbs of bullets
means more fighting power.

Other generals are thinking that going from an 80 lb pack to a 70 lb pack
means fewer injuries, so your fighting readiness increases without changing
anything else. Fewer injuries means more fighting power.

The bean counter types are also considering that they can ship the same amount
of electric energy to the front line with fewer shipments (assuming that they
are weight constrained, but they are often volume constrained). This frees up
logistics capacity for getting other things to the front lines. This means
more fighting power.

No matter which lens you view it through, this thought process is what leads
to military leaders salivating at the thought of new technologies. If you want
your startup (or academic research team) to make big bucks, then seek out
government contracts for small businesses or technology development contracts.
These contracts are very favorable to your company, as you almost always get
paid for your work even if you don't deliver the promised product. As long as
you're willing to accept some stigma from Silicon Valley you probably have a
much higher probability of success.

------
nagisa
The article itself can be found at

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1175-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1175-6)

------
ed_balls
> opens a possibility to significantly increase the lithium-ion battery energy
> density while preserving safety due to the aqueous nature of the
> electrolyte.

Wouldn't that be bad for car's stability?

~~~
gonzo41
You put baffles in the liquid so the sloshing is reduced. Or use a spherical
container. There's a fantastic Engineering Connections where Richard Hammond
explains essentially the same thing about LNG transport ships.

~~~
hobs
I loved Engineering Connections - his explanation of the free surface effect
was so well done.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d3gVypww6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d3gVypww6s)

------
bluntfang
Does anyone know the company that was commissioned to research and/or
manufacture this for the Army?

~~~
deckar01
> The researchers, led by Chunsheng Wang, R.F. and F.R. Wright Distinguished
> Chair Professor in UMD's Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering
> and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry; Kang Xu, ARL Fellow, and Oleg
> Borodin, ARL scientist, developed the battery into a testable stage...

[https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=3445](https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=3445)

------
Sutanreyu
The future is with solid-state batteries.

