• stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 months ago

    X

    I see many “could” in the text, I have been burned by other articles claiming their specific thing will change established practicies for the better, most have failed.

    Untill the tech has been proven useful I will remain sceptic

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think the comparisons against lithium ion are a bit pie in the sky, however they’ve apparently solved a number of issues that face lead acid batteries, eg dendrite formation and charge cycles (they did 500-700 with a reduction to 80% capacity, whereas lead acid typically can only do about 350 cycles). Zinc is typically much worse than lead acid for dendrites, but their bismuth oxide layer might make it perform better than lead acid.

      Even so, I’m skeptical that such a process could be commercialised and compete with lead acid on cost. The way they seem to target their comparisons towards lithium batteries further suggests this.

      Maybe there is some niche where lithium is overkill and this could be viable, though, who knows. BESS on the electrical network is massively growing, so there’s probably some scope for people to try this there also - especially with regards to fire risk, which some people (particularly planning authorities) are getting nervous about.

      The full paper can be found for free here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202400237. It has smiley faces in the diagrams.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Seems like Gatorade, a water based electrolyte, instead of an acid based electrolyte. It’s mostly about less toxic and cheaper which are pluses, but nothing really about how well they work

  • rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    The last time something like this was posted (by a less reputable source admittedly) I was hopeful and defensive. From what I’ve read since then, essentially, show me the battery.

    • Shawdow194@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You’re right, the current sulfuric acid and potassium hydroxide we use right now are just flowers are roses compared to… water

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I prefer water than other terrible stuff inside it… Specially if it reduces the possibility of a fire. Water damages just that device… fire can burn the whole building if not detected early.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The managing director of Deakin University’s Battery Research and Innovation Hub, Dr Timothy Khoo, who was not involved in the research, said he was sceptical about any claims water batteries may one day replace lithium-ion, but said the protective layer developed by the RMIT-led team represents a “novel and quite unique” approach that solves “a key stability issue” with battery technology.

    Pretty much my thoughts exactly when I read the article. The lead researcher of this project is bigging it up well beyond any rational scope, but they do have a novel invention here for dealing with dendrites in batteries.

    Perhaps their technique could be applied to more conventional batteries, though I’m somewhat doubtful. Bismuth isn’t exactly cheap, which is why lead acid dominates for most things.