Maker Pro
Maker Pro

NEWS: Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones

J

jim

(from
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html)

Stanford Report, December 18, 2007
Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones

BY DAN STOBER


Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent
the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video
cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant
professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount
of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop
that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to
ocean-hopping business travelers.

"It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary
development."

The breakthrough is described in a paper, "High-performance lithium battery
anodes using silicon nanowires," published online Dec. 16 in Nature
Nanotechnology, written by Cui, his graduate chemistry student Candace Chan
and five others.

The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries attractive
to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could also be used in
homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop solar panels.

"Given the mature infrastructure behind silicon, this new technology can be
pushed to real life quickly," Cui said.

The electrical storage capacity of a Li-ion battery is limited by how much
lithium can be held in the battery's anode, which is typically made of
carbon. Silicon has a much higher capacity than carbon, but also has a
drawback.

Silicon placed in a battery swells as it absorbs positively charged lithium
atoms during charging, then shrinks during use (i.e., when playing your
iPod) as the lithium is drawn out of the silicon. This expand/shrink cycle
typically causes the silicon (often in the form of particles or a thin film)
to pulverize, degrading the performance of the battery.

Cui's battery gets around this problem with nanotechnology. The lithium is
stored in a forest of tiny silicon nanowires, each with a diameter
one-thousandth the thickness of a sheet of paper. The nanowires inflate four
times their normal size as they soak up lithium. But, unlike other silicon
shapes, they do not fracture.

Research on silicon in batteries began three decades ago. Chan explained:
"The people kind of gave up on it because the capacity wasn't high enough
and the cycle life wasn't good enough. And it was just because of the shape
they were using. It was just too big, and they couldn't undergo the volume
changes."

Then, along came silicon nanowires. "We just kind of put them together,"
Chan said.

For their experiments, Chan grew the nanowires on a stainless steel
substrate, providing an excellent electrical connection. "It was a fantastic
moment when Candace told me it was working," Cui said.

Cui said that a patent application has been filed. He is considering
formation of a company or an agreement with a battery manufacturer.
Manufacturing the nanowire batteries would require "one or two different
steps, but the process can certainly be scaled up," he added. "It's a well
understood process."

Also contributing to the paper in Nature Nanotechnology were Halin Peng and
Robert A. Huggins of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford, Gao Liu
of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Kevin McIlwrath and Xiao Feng
Zhang of the electron microscope division of Hitachi High Technologies in
Pleasanton, Calif
 
J

jim

jim said:
(from
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html)

Stanford Report, December 18, 2007
Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones

BY DAN STOBER


Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent
the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video
cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant
professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the
amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries.
A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20
hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.

"It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary
development."

The breakthrough is described in a paper, "High-performance lithium
battery anodes using silicon nanowires," published online Dec. 16 in
Nature Nanotechnology, written by Cui, his graduate chemistry student
Candace Chan and five others.

The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries
attractive to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could
also be used in homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop
solar panels.

"Given the mature infrastructure behind silicon, this new technology can
be pushed to real life quickly," Cui said.

The electrical storage capacity of a Li-ion battery is limited by how much
lithium can be held in the battery's anode, which is typically made of
carbon. Silicon has a much higher capacity than carbon, but also has a
drawback.

Silicon placed in a battery swells as it absorbs positively charged
lithium atoms during charging, then shrinks during use (i.e., when playing
your iPod) as the lithium is drawn out of the silicon. This expand/shrink
cycle typically causes the silicon (often in the form of particles or a
thin film) to pulverize, degrading the performance of the battery.

Cui's battery gets around this problem with nanotechnology. The lithium is
stored in a forest of tiny silicon nanowires, each with a diameter
one-thousandth the thickness of a sheet of paper. The nanowires inflate
four times their normal size as they soak up lithium. But, unlike other
silicon shapes, they do not fracture.

Research on silicon in batteries began three decades ago. Chan explained:
"The people kind of gave up on it because the capacity wasn't high enough
and the cycle life wasn't good enough. And it was just because of the
shape they were using. It was just too big, and they couldn't undergo the
volume changes."

Then, along came silicon nanowires. "We just kind of put them together,"
Chan said.

For their experiments, Chan grew the nanowires on a stainless steel
substrate, providing an excellent electrical connection. "It was a
fantastic moment when Candace told me it was working," Cui said.

Cui said that a patent application has been filed. He is considering
formation of a company or an agreement with a battery manufacturer.
Manufacturing the nanowire batteries would require "one or two different
steps, but the process can certainly be scaled up," he added. "It's a well
understood process."

Also contributing to the paper in Nature Nanotechnology were Halin Peng
and Robert A. Huggins of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford,
Gao Liu of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Kevin McIlwrath and
Xiao Feng Zhang of the electron microscope division of Hitachi High
Technologies in Pleasanton, Calif

You do realize that that means that a Tesla raodster could go up to 2500
miles on a single charge!

Wow!

Now maybe we can do something about automobile pollution, at least.

I know all about the percentages of pollution so don't get your geek in a
wad. But reducing (or eliminating) auto exhaust will definitely improve
local air quality and may even help cool cities off a couple of degrees in
the summer. Not to mention the new quiet engines.....

jim
 
D

Don Lancaster

jim said:
Stanford Report, December 18, 2007
Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones

BY DAN STOBER

Obviously bogus headline.
Theoretical lithium limit is 1200 wh/kg.
Many current cells are 200 wh/kg.

Does seem to be a useful development, though.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
 
A

Al G

Don Lancaster said:
Obviously bogus headline.
Theoretical lithium limit is 1200 wh/kg.
Many current cells are 200 wh/kg.

Does seem to be a useful development, though.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

I think the real advantage is in charge time. More surface area=quicker
charge.

Al G
 
R

RadicalModerate

In sci.energy.hydrogen jim said:
Now maybe we can do something about automobile pollution, at least.

Replacing gas and Diesel engines with electric ones on a large scale is
going to require massive investment in the electric generation and
DISTRIBUTION infrastructure.
To get a "win" for air quality many more nuke plants will need to be
built; coal plants simply shift the problem.

Yes I bet Wm. Mook is reading, however his solution is a few years off;
nukes are here and now :) .
 
A

Arnold Walker

RadicalModerate said:
Replacing gas and Diesel engines with electric ones on a large scale is
going to require massive investment in the electric generation and
DISTRIBUTION infrastructure.
To get a "win" for air quality many more nuke plants will need to be
built; coal plants simply shift the problem.

Yes I bet Wm. Mook is reading, however his solution is a few years off;
nukes are here and now :) .
One thing about environment or human habitate....on virtually any hibitate
there is hard consideration on how
many can fit in a square mile except humans .
Big government does not want to give up that revenue from you stacking 100
stories or building on a volcano.
So zoning never really considers what XXXpeople in an area will do to the
air ,water,or much of anything else ....
except thier tax rolls.Maybe it is getting time to be like the ag extension
agent or game warden looking at that as well.
Look at where the dirtest areas of the country are and it is usually an
overpopulated land mass.
Look at areas like California that are having houses fall off a hill that
never should have been there in the first place.
That alone should do as much or more for the environment than much of the
gee whiz circling around.
 
E

Erdemal

jim said:
(from
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html)

Stanford Report, December 18, 2007
Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones

BY DAN STOBER


Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent
the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video
cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant
professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount
of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop
that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to
ocean-hopping business travelers.

"It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary
development."

The breakthrough is described in a paper, "High-performance lithium battery
anodes using silicon nanowires," published online Dec. 16 in Nature
Nanotechnology, written by Cui, his graduate chemistry student Candace Chan
and five others.

The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries attractive
to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could also be used in
homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop solar panels.

"Given the mature infrastructure behind silicon, this new technology can be
pushed to real life quickly," Cui said.

The electrical storage capacity of a Li-ion battery is limited by how much
lithium can be held in the battery's anode, which is typically made of
carbon. Silicon has a much higher capacity than carbon, but also has a
drawback.

Silicon placed in a battery swells as it absorbs positively charged lithium
atoms during charging, then shrinks during use (i.e., when playing your
iPod) as the lithium is drawn out of the silicon. This expand/shrink cycle
typically causes the silicon (often in the form of particles or a thin film)
to pulverize, degrading the performance of the battery.

Cui's battery gets around this problem with nanotechnology. The lithium is
stored in a forest of tiny silicon nanowires, each with a diameter
one-thousandth the thickness of a sheet of paper. The nanowires inflate four
times their normal size as they soak up lithium. But, unlike other silicon
shapes, they do not fracture.

Research on silicon in batteries began three decades ago. Chan explained:
"The people kind of gave up on it because the capacity wasn't high enough
and the cycle life wasn't good enough. And it was just because of the shape
they were using. It was just too big, and they couldn't undergo the volume
changes."

Then, along came silicon nanowires. "We just kind of put them together,"
Chan said.

For their experiments, Chan grew the nanowires on a stainless steel
substrate, providing an excellent electrical connection. "It was a fantastic
moment when Candace told me it was working," Cui said.

Cui said that a patent application has been filed. He is considering
formation of a company or an agreement with a battery manufacturer.
Manufacturing the nanowire batteries would require "one or two different
steps, but the process can certainly be scaled up," he added. "It's a well
understood process."

Also contributing to the paper in Nature Nanotechnology were Halin Peng and
Robert A. Huggins of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford, Gao Liu
of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Kevin McIlwrath and Xiao Feng
Zhang of the electron microscope division of Hitachi High Technologies in
Pleasanton, Calif

Add this to the NanoSolar $1/W PV and there is no energy shortage
anymore!

As I already wrote many times, this would be a *revolution*
we cant imagine or predict. It would *completely* change our
societies. In a real free world, this could happen within
??five years??.

Maybe lithium shortage will occure then and everyone will turn
to 'El Salar del Hombre Muerto'. Maybe then, we'll finally know
who was that unfortunate 'hombre muerto'; 'muerto' in the
probably most horrible way: thirst ...

The questions are:
Where is the scam? Stanford sounds a trustable source.
When will it be 'in our plates' ?

Erdy
 
D

Dan Bloomquist

Alex said:
Not really. There's plenty of free capacity at night time.

At that, why all this hand waving about something that would take
decades even if it happens?

La, la, la, usenet.......
 
E

Eeyore

Erdemal said:
As I already wrote many times, this would be a *revolution*
we cant imagine or predict. It would *completely* change our
societies. In a real free world, this could happen within
??five years??.

Tell me how it would be possible to build all the new factories required to do
that in 5 years.

The impact will be minimal for ages.

Graham
 
E

Erdemal

Eeyore said:
Erdemal wrote:


Tell me how it would be possible to build all the new factories
required to do that in 5 years.

PV at $1/W is profitable, 'cheap' high capacity battery is
profitable. *In_a_real_free_world* , if it's profitable it
should be a 'gold rush'?

Do you see the three basic assumptions I make?
The impact will be minimal for ages.

Maybe? Time will tell.

If you're interested by what I think :):
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think that nearly everything is technologically ready even
without these nanothings. After all it's only silicon: twenty
square meter of ?10 micrometer amorphous silicon per household:
only less than 1 kg of silicon.
I think that there are a lot of mighty groups and lobbies(*)
that are doing everything they can to slow things. I think
they will fail. I think too that the first that will take
the chance and go for it will win. There are signs for that,
old energy groups are now in the hands of loosers and
laggards: old european empires (BP, Shell, Total), Russia,
Middle Eastern Kingdoms, much less than before in the USA,
none in Japan, Korea, ...
-----------------------------------------------------------

(*) energy is huge thing, $10+ trillion world wide, employing
millions of people; mighty states and most of the world
oligarchies are build on that. I am an old hopeless
paranoiac ;) yet I dont see them win.

Erdy
 
E

Eeyore

Erdemal said:
PV at $1/W is profitable,

No argument there. Nanosolar have yet to demonstrate that they can
deliver such panels in volume at that price however. And their lifetime
is as yet an unknown.

Given the price of other panels in the market, it seems unlikely that
Nanosoalr willbe selling their panels any cheaper than the competition
however. If they did, they would simply be 'throwing money away'.

Get back to me when you've found a source of $1/W panels will you ? I'll
probably buy one or two myself.

'cheap' high capacity battery is profitable.

As yet it's merely a press release. Show me working product first.
Without that it's merely talk.

*In_a_real_free_world* , if it's profitable it should be a 'gold
rush'?

Do you see the three basic assumptions I make?

I see you asume these things even exist at 'cheap prices'. I don't see
any. Where are they ?

Nanosolar presumably has patents, so unless they allow licencing,
they'll be the only company supplying these allegedly 'cheap' panels and
clearly supply will therefore be very limited.

A single *NEW* company can only have very limited impact on large
existing markets for a long time you know.

Maybe? Time will tell.

You need to build factories to make this stuff first ! Not to mention
you need proven product. Until then, NOTHING will happen. It's all talk.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Erdemal said:
Your <snips> are not always fair :).

Not intentionally unfair. I simply snip the bits I'm not commenting on.
I loathe posts that contain a hundred or so lines of repeated text and
then one line of comment.

Who you? Me? There is a world out there.

'Business' needs to build them. And no-one can make Nanosolar's panels
without a licence. So, unless Nanosolar offer licences, then supply will
be limited by what they alone can make.

How sad :)
Fact.



Again ...

Fact.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Alex said:
Maybe Nanosolar will start to sell me ink in a format I can put into
my printer. I'm sure it can't be more expensive than Lexmark ink.

Where did you get the idea you can print solar panels with an inkjet ?

Graham
 
D

Don Lancaster

Eeyore said:
Erdemal wrote:




No argument there. Nanosolar have yet to demonstrate that they can
deliver such panels in volume at that price however. And their lifetime
is as yet an unknown.

Given the price of other panels in the market, it seems unlikely that
Nanosoalr willbe selling their panels any cheaper than the competition
however. If they did, they would simply be 'throwing money away'.

Get back to me when you've found a source of $1/W panels will you ? I'll
probably buy one or two myself.





As yet it's merely a press release. Show me working product first.
Without that it's merely talk.





I see you asume these things even exist at 'cheap prices'. I don't see
any. Where are they ?

Nanosolar presumably has patents, so unless they allow licencing,
they'll be the only company supplying these allegedly 'cheap' panels and
clearly supply will therefore be very limited.

A single *NEW* company can only have very limited impact on large
existing markets for a long time you know.





You need to build factories to make this stuff first ! Not to mention
you need proven product. Until then, NOTHING will happen. It's all talk.

Graham

Actually, a dollar a watt will not be nearly enough for net energy
parity breakeven. All you have at that level are gasoline in disguise
"paint it green" transfer payments and subsidy ripoff scams.

Sixteen cents per watt will be the magic number where the utilities
start aggressively using pv for routine peaking.

If you are generating ten cents per kilowatt hour pv at an amortized
cost of eight cents per kilowatt hour, then your net energy production
is only two cents per kilowatt hour.

Which, with reasonable volume, will take about FIFTY YEARS to even pay
for the current California subsidy ripoff. Let alone work off the pv
energy sink backlog or the new energy dollars being thrown at it.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
 
D

Don Lancaster

D

Don Lancaster

Anthony said:
That nonsense aside, who cares what the utilities do? If it's cheap
enough then people will use it regardless of what the utilities are
doing.

If a power utility cannot make pv deliver net energy when properly full
burden accounted, there is no way in hell an individual can.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
 
E

Eeyore

BradGuth said:
The likes of Eeyore and Don Lancaster are each infowar members of
their infomercial spewing big-government, big-energy and of their
faith-based puppeteers doing all they possibly can in order to
plunder, pillage and rape mother Earth for all she's worth, and then
some. It's what such mainstream bigots and LLPOF rusemasters of their
Third Reich kind do best.

And YOU are an idiot who freely mixes, fact fiction myth and rumour with
no apparenent ability to distinguish between them.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Alex said:
It depends on the cost of setting up a system and maintaining it.
Nuclear power stations come in at about $3 billion per GW. Assuming a
solar plant can operate at 33% capacity, and cost a $1/W installed,
then it will certainly undercut nuclear - especially since its
operating costs are even lower.Its even more cost effective on a roof
top where it doesn't need grid reinforcing.

Actual capacity is more likely to be ~ 16%. I know of nowhere that insolation is
the equivalent of 8 mid-day hours of sunshine. The Sahara maybe ?

Lets do the sums again. If your 1KW roof top panel costs $1 per watt
($1000) installed, and generates 8x250 = 2,000 KWhrs per year.

A more realistic number would be 4 hours x 354 days (averaged insolation in very
sunny areas of the USA or Europe) and as little as 3 hours further north. See
any insolation map.

So, 1100 - 1460 kWh

Value @ 10c/kWh = $110 at the low end. So an 11% return on your $1000 invested
except it's not just $1000, you have to add installation costs and the cost of
an inverter to use the electricity. That might bring it down to say a 5% return
which is OK I guess.

Graham
 
Top