Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Plastic Batteries Coming Soon? 200

Roland Piquepaille writes "Engineers at Brown University have built a prototype of a hybrid plastic battery that uses a conductive polymer. The system, which marries the power of a capacitor with the storage capacity of a battery, can store and deliver power efficiently. For example, during performance testing, 'it delivered more than 100 times the power of a standard alkaline battery.' Still, it's unlikely that such a device can appear on the market before several years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Plastic Batteries Coming Soon?

Comments Filter:
  • The summary is pretty bad. If I'm reading the article right:

    This is neat, but not a revolution, it's exactly the hybrid of a battery and a capacitor - it has some advantages of both.

    This device has similar or less storage capacity than a battery, but can deliver its power much faster.
    It has similar or less power delivery abilities than a capacitor, but twice the storage capacity.

    In MANY devices, the real problem is that the batteries drain. This doesn't help that in the least bit. This will not make your electric car go farther. This only helps the situation with ultra-high-drain requirements, where a normal battery just wouldn't work.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Saturday September 16, 2006 @12:40PM (#16120566)
    Batteries tend to improve linearly while electronics tend to improve exponentially. So this really makes batteries seem like they are stagnant. If batteris went at the same speed as electronics. A nuclear power-plant will be in a AAA Battery.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16, 2006 @12:50PM (#16120614)
    Conducting polymer (such as polypyrrole) supercapacitors have been around for years. For example, see some of Belanger's work here:
    http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/dep_chim/prof/belanger .htm [er.uqam.ca]

    Other examples include:
    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServ let?prog=normal&id=JESOAN0001510000070A1052000001& idtype=cvips&gifs=yes [aip.org]

    Nothing new to see here, folks! Sorry!

    (Yes, I am an electrochemist)

  • Yes, according to the article: A BATTERY has high storage, low power. A CAPACITOR has high power, low storage.

    This has more storage than a low-storage capacitor and more power than a low-power battery.

    It does not in any place, at all, say that it has more - or even as much - storage as a battery or power as a capacitor. If it had 100 times the storage of a battery it would change a lot of things.

  • New Standards (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:07PM (#16120676) Homepage Journal
    Interestingly, alkaline solutions [google.com] offer greater power density than hydrogen. So maybe the "new standard" alkaline batteries will be fuelcells.

    What I really want to see is "plastic" catalyst membranes in these fuelcells. That will make the cells cheap and easily replaceable, lowering the TCO consistent with the cheap fuel. It might need to be "new standard" plastic, carbon fullerenes with nanoscale features catalyzing the process. But if we can avoid the rare earth and precious metal elements fuelcells often require, we can more easily switch our power systems over to the cleaner, smaller, cheaper systems. Someday, a phone that can talk longer than I can.
  • Badn journalism.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:07PM (#16120681)
    • "Comming soon" is not equal to "comming in several years". Stop lying in headlines!
    • 100 times the power will make a lot of people believe you are talking about battery life. This is wrong. The short-term peak-performance is 100 time that of the alkaline cell. This says absolutely nothing about the power capacity and is a worthless feature for, e.g., mobile electonics. Typical disinformation in order to hype this thing. Also the 500A or so peak current this thing seems to have is needed nowhere, i.e. a basically worthless feature.
  • by luder ( 923306 ) * <slashdot@lbra[ ]et ['s.n' in gap]> on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:18PM (#16120713)
    Well, unless I'm missing something here, if it delivers 100 times more power than an ordinary battery then it also increases it's life:

    P = V*I
    100P = V*I
    I = 100 (P/V)

    For example, most powerfull easy to find rechargeable AA batteries can deliver 2.5A, or 3W, at 1.2V.

    P1 = 1.2 * 2.5
    P1 = 3W

    This battery can power a 3W, or 2.5A, device for an hour.

    With an increase of 100 times more power we have:

    P2 = 100 * P1
    P2 = 100 * 3
    P2 = 300W

    The new battery could power the 3W device for 100 hours, instead of the 1 hour that the current battery can do, or a 300W device for a single hour.
  • by flooey ( 695860 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:27PM (#16120748)
    Well, unless I'm missing something here, if it delivers 100 times more power than an ordinary battery then it also increases it's life:

    You're confusing power with energy (which is easy to do, considering your "power bill" is actually a bill for energy used, not power). What it's saying is that its peak power delivery is 100 times that of a normal battery, so at a given voltage, it can deliver 100 times the current of a standard battery. It could well be able to store the same amount of energy, though, which means that if you're running it at its improved full power it dies in 1/100 the time of a normal battery.
  • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @02:07PM (#16120909) Journal
    Well, unless I'm missing something here, if it delivers 100 times more power than an ordinary battery then it also increases it's life:

    You're missing a LOT, but you'll get modded up for it anyway... The article even says it's only about 2X the capacity of current capacitors, shortly after the 100X notation.

    When they say 100X more power, they mean it can deliver current 100X FASTER than a battery at a certain voltage. That actually does very slightly increase the useful life of a battery, but that's not 100X.

  • You are correct: (Score:3, Informative)

    by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @02:11PM (#16120925) Journal
    The technology for long-lasting batteries does indeed exist. However, the applications using them has taken advantage of the increased capacity by making smaller devices with..*smaller batteries.*

    For example, the first cell phones were the size of a laptop, weighed a ton, and worked for about twenty minutes (did they even have a standby mode?)

    fast forward to today, where cell phones are the size and weight of a multivitamin, last for hours of talking, weeks of standby, and taste like candy. (unlike the vitimin...)

    Certainly reducing power requirements contributed, and that compounded the benefits from the various improvements in battery-cell technology.
  • by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @02:26PM (#16120976) Homepage
    Because manufacturers make less money if we have to buy fewer batteries. In a related rant, that's paritally why we don't have more fuel efficient (or alternative to gasoline) cars now.
    I've heard this argument in various forms for 30+ years, and it's as big a load of nonsense as it's ever been. Let's start with cars. How, exactly, does General Motors (or any other car maker) benefit by selling you a car that gets worse gas mileage? They are not in the oil business, and even the slightest hint of collusion with the oil industry in that regard would have the NHTSA crawling up their ass with a microscope. Hell, they're already up their ass with a microscope with CAFE regulations. On top of that, they have no vested interest in the fuel production industry to begin with. They make cars! If Chevron sells 20% more gasoline, they don't sell any more cars because of it. Think about it rationally: if Ford had found a way to make a regular car get 80mpg using some Magic Carburetor Technology (to reference the urban legend in its 70's form), they could make a killing in the marketplace. Why haven't they done that? Because the Magic Carburetor doesn't exist.

    By the same token, the battery company that comes up with a product that delivers 3 times the amp-hours of similar competing battery will make a bloody fortune while all their competitors sit around undercutting each other on price trying to sell their crappy stuff to the lowest market segment.

    Honestly, do you conspiracy nuts even think about what you're saying?
  • by hernick ( 63550 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @04:29PM (#16121439)
    Yes, you are missing something very important.

    You've introduced three units in your calculations:
      * Power (P, in Watts W)
      * Voltage (V, in Volts V)
      * Current (I, in Amperes A)

    However, these units only measure energy at a single point in time. But we're dealing with finite energy sources. We need to introduce another unit:
      * Time (T, in Hours h, or in Seconds s)

    Let's take a new look at your formula, adding a variable for time:
      P * h = V * I * h

    Now, let us consider a the same NiMH AA battery that you looked at earlier. To know how powerful that battery is, we need two know two things:
      * Its cell voltage: 1.2V
      * Its capacity rating: 2.5Ah (normally quoted in mAh / you'd see 2500mAh in the specs)
      * It's maximum power drain: 2.5A

    These two numbers tell us that roughly, this AA battery can deliver its quoted voltage of 1.2V for one hour if the current drain is 2.5A.

    P1 = 1.2V * 2.5A * 1h
    P1 = 3W * 1h = 1.2V * 2.5Ah
    P1 = 3Wh = 1.2V * 2.5Ah

    This battery can power a device with a power draw of 3W (equivalent to a current draw of 2.5A at a voltage of 1.2V) for one hour. It has a capacity of 3Wh (equivalent to a capacity rating of 2.5Ah at a cell voltage of 1.2V).

    Let's assume that these are the specs for our new battery:
      * Its cell voltage: 1.2V
      * Its capacity rating: 2.5Ah
      * It's maximum power drain: 250A

    Now, this is where you get it wrong. What we're doing is increasing the power drain by 100, not increasing the capacity by 100.

    P1 = 3W * 1h = 1.2V * 2.5A * 1h

    P2 = 3W / 100 * 100 * 1h = 1.2V * 2.5A * 100 * 1h / 100
    P2 = 3W * 1h = 1.2V * 250A * 0.01h
    P2 = 3Wh = 1.2V * 250A * 36s
    P2 = 3Wh = 1.2V * 2.5Ah

    So, the new battery could power the 3W device for 1 hour, or a 300W device for 36 seconds.

    Now, in reality, this new battery/capacitor hybrid is likely to have a far lower capacity rating (quoted in mAh on the box) than your typical NiMH AA cell. Also, the typical AA cell has a higher maximum power drain, which can be increased further by cooling the battery as you discharge it.

    Also, in the real world, things don't work out quite as nicely as in these equations - there are power losses that vary based on a lot of factors. How fast is the battery discharged? How hot is it - and the more quickly you discharge it, the hotter it becomes, the less efficient it becomes. Is it a continuous discharge load or are we looking at spikes that give it time to cool down?

    Anyway. This battery isn't quite the revolution your flawed calculations would indicate.
  • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @04:30PM (#16121445) Journal
    Currently there are three kinds of rechargeable batteries used for electonics and toys:
    • NiCd - low energy, high power, nasty heavy metals - good for driving small motors that need high current for a short time.
    • NiMH - about 4-5 times the energy of NiCd, lower power, medium life - they'll discharge in under a month even if you're not using them, so they're not good for some applications.
    • Rechargeable alkaline - medium energy, lower power, long life, full 1.5 volts.
    For toys like remote-control model cars or model airplanes, Nickel Cadmium is the main choice, because it can dump a lot of power for a given battery weight. If this new technology lives up to its promise, it sounds like a good replacement, and we can avoid the heavy metal toxicity problems of cadmium. The article doesn't talk about what voltage it generates (some things really like 1.5v better than 1.2v), or how long the charge lasts if you're not using it.
  • by Raistlin77 ( 754120 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @04:50PM (#16121516)
    For toys like remote-control model cars or model airplanes, Nickel Cadmium is the main choice...

    Actually, if you look at the r/c hobby scene, LiPo batteries are the big thing these days. The voltage-per-cell is higher (3.7V per cell) than both NiMH and NiCd (1.2V per cell). But they are considerably more expensive and require special speed controllers as well as special chargers. An improperly charged/discharged LiPo battery can literally result in a fireball.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...