If successful, lithium-air batteries will kick jet fuel out of the sky and bunker fuel out of the ocean.
"Mainstream lithium-ion batteries have an energy density of ~250-270 Wh/kg, while future solid-state alternatives are expected to achieve ~500 Wh/kg. Lithium-air configurations present a theoretical energy density limit of 12,000 Wh/kg, a ceiling that matches the energy capacity of conventional gasoline."
CATL eyes 12,000 Wh/kg theoretical limit lithium-air EV battery to end range anxiety
interestingengineering.com/energy/catl-12
Air Energy Closes Seed Round to Scale DOE-Validated Solid-State Lithium-Air Battery
natlawreview.com/press-releases
Post
Conversation
Post your reply
Unfortunately when you factor in oxygen, it ends up being ~3.5kWh/kg, so 3x worse than jet fuel
Jets are already constrained on weight
I think it’s far more likely that we just make jet fuel cheaper and carbon neutral by synthesizing it from air via externally cheap nuclear
So basically 1,200 Wh/kg hypothesized by Argonne, and a very hand-wavy unsourced "it could get an order of magnitude better!" through the hype machine gets you to 12,000 Wh/kg.
Hosting an event in SF June 10th
Talks from , , , and allocate + Radiantgraph
They're all hiring engineers and the format is basically every founder gives a short rundown on what they're working on and then attendees can chat w/
Of course, somebody still has to generate and transmit and convert that energy and pack it into the battery, and then do it all over again in the other direction in flight, but that's a "mere detail" to theorists and evangelists.
You need to consume the fuel to extract the energy whilst lithium air needs to be recharged. As impressive as this is, you’re not comparing apples to apples
For aircraft, one thing lithium air does not do is disappear off the weight as you use it. As it gains oxygen it actually gets heavier.
The standard aircraft range equations have the same sort of mass ratio factor as rockets velocity change equation. This won’t.
the battery gains weight as it absorbs oxygen during discharge, unlike jet fuel which lightens the aircraft, reducing effective range per standard flight equations
Like nuclear fusion.
It is always 15 years away.
But a great grift for grants and investment harvesting.
RE
No way by volume can energy joules of one gallon of gasoline be watched …by ANYTHING definitely not battery tho #axial_flux motor already have hybrid drive full send in the USA only going to get better …pure play BEV is crushing diesel tho #diesel_emissions why that be
Why is it important for maritime energy sources to be light? Nuclear reactors would serve the purpose far better.
Currently, pack-level (gravimetric) energy density is lower (~140-190 Wh/kg).
The media could not be played.
Okay, we have gravitational density, what's the volumetric density of Li-Air batteries?
Air is very light, you can have crazy Wh/kg but at huge volume.
There has been story after story after story and nothing has materialized on this front. Nothing burger
Strange how you claim, that these batteries will "kick jet fuel out of the sky" ... then compare against batteries?!?
Your claimed density: 500 Wh/kg
Realistic value ~1 MJ/kg (280 Wh/kg)
Jet fuel: 43.15 MJ/kg (12000 Wh/kg)
Do 3000% better, then we'll talk. That's not a typo.
When thermodynamic efficiency of gasoline is considered, current batteries have energy densities that rival hydrocarbon liquids.
I looked at Li air nearly 20 years ago for a university project and it was already one of the potential works changing battery techs, but it has huge flaws and drawbacks and the people then saying it would mature in 5 to 10 years were overhyping it and those problems still exist.
Great energy density, but no mention of lifecycle recharge counts.
Traditional Lithium-Air batteries are fuel cells that have very limited recharging ability. Typically swapped and reprocessed/remanufactured. Would be groundbreaking if could be used 100’s of recharge cycles.
We will see. Lithium-ion with that much energy better have a really graceful failure mode...
Even if this new battery technology works out, ports would need to charge ships at a rate of ~1 GW, requiring substantial nuclear power plants on site. It’s not practical.
How about practical.
CATL is not ahead in solid batteries at this point.
NOT. AT. ALL.
Solid state batteries have always come across as a tech like hydrogen fuel cells: works in the lab, but too many technical hurdles to ever go mainstream. I don't know much about lithium-air batteries. Sounds promising, but I need to see real-world evidence before I get excited.
Does this battery technology
eliminate the fire hazard of lithium ion batteries,
since they must react with air
in order to release energy?
Does simply sealing them from air
prevent them from producing heat?
I highly doubt batteries are going to get you more thrust per kg than a turbojet engine.
Energy density is just one parameter to consider; cost, recycling, and environmental impact are other factors. Sodium batteries have a lower energy density, but they cost much less, have lower environmental impact, and are sufficient for transportation in metropolitan areas.
For the interested:
1. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.114
2. advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ae
3. energy.mit.edu/research/futur
The value 12,000 Wh/kg given in (1) is an estimation based on the lithium anode mass alone. Taking the mass of Oxygen into account, the theoretical limit becomes 3500 Wh/kg.
1/2
The critiques in here are painful to read.
Did none of you:
A. Read the whole post
B. Read the linked article or
C. Read some further links?
I know the answer and it saddens me.
A lazy populous, but plenty of time to comment.
Li-ion timeline is not instructive. Sodium ion is.
