Toyota have been saying that their solid state battery will be available in a year or two for at least the past 8 years. They're also infamous for trying to stop people from wanting to buy a BEV ( think of the truly awful BZ4 for instance). So that's why many people have stopped believing them.
Great video sir! One nitpik though: your Atmo sponsor offer expires on Sep 23rd and its October now. Not sure if you realized that. Keep up the great work here. Love your videos!
You mentioned MTOW, but you failed to mention MLW. A key component consistently forgotten about is that currently planes increase in efficiency as duration of the flight continues - because fuel burn directly correlates to a decrease in weight of the aircraft. Unlike current planes, you can't dump battery weight - so now the theoretical MTOW is also the MLW as well.
That only makes up for the weight of the hybrid fuel, but not the hybrid engine, so advantage over a battery system is lessened, dragging the whole idea of 500 mile flight back towards 'not happening yet'.
Yep, no matter how efficient batteries get you will never see batteries in commercial long range aircraft because you have to be able to “jettison the fuel weight” to return to the field in an emergency. You can’t dump battery packs on people below but you can dump fuel that just vaporizes.
@@tropicthndr That would not be applicable in a fully electric propulsion aircraft. The takeoff and landing weight will always be roughly the same, so it would always operate within that weight limit negating any need for shedding weight for an emergency landing shortly after takeoff like might be necessary in current aircraft because of fuel weight early in a flight.
Very impressive! It sounds like they still have a ways to go though if they want to use this for flight. 0C sounds cold, but at higher elevations it's actually fairly warm. A mid-western winter will easily get down to -17C or lower. When you're talking airplane altitudes you'll easily see -40C.
The flip side of that is that since you're no longer concerned with the fire hazard, it's fairly straightforward to insulate the battery compartment for temperature control.
And as a bonus you don’t need to heat the battery as much unless it’s optimum performance comes at a similar temperature to the Li-ion. A 15C difference on the low end of the scale.
Tesla’s only get around 1/4 - 1/3rd of their stated ranges below -30c, because of their battery’s +15°c heating needs. It’s why the Canadian gov is paying grants for the rescue/towing sector to come up with a standard for high-voltage, common connector, generators on new tow/rescue truck builds. Plus, they are fighting Tesla’s idea to make their batteries structurally integral, and irreplaceable, to all their vehicles by 2025. It takes 3-30x the water to put out a EV fire with the current packs that can be removed(or at least accessed).
I don't think keeping the battery warm will be much of a problem. They generate their own heat when discharging (or charging), and like everything else they follow the square-cube law - meaning that a large battery (like in an airplane) has less surface area for heat exchange per unit volume than a small battery. The battery can be brought to the right temperature before takeoff and then kept warm by its own heat. I actually wouldn't be terribly surprised if they require active *cooling* even in flight.
Great video. I think the thing to remember is breakthroughs can take 10-20 years to become commercially viable for mass manufacturing or affordable for consumer use. Look at gps, personal computers, even smartphones with touchscreens. All these breakthroughs will eventually be combined in to a true leap forward step change. Until then companies tweak around the edges.
Moronic video: Same problem all other high Wh/kg batteries have of which we have known about and USED for MANY decades: Rare elements. Selnium = useless for mass production. Selenium is very rare. Is MORE rare than Silver by ~50%... Hello? Rarer than SILVER folks. This will NEVER work. Make it out of Barium or some such toxic material we need to clean up anyways.
I mostly ignore these 'next big thing' 'breakthrough' clickbait videos, you get them every other day...and I don't know what it's doing to some people's mental health who swallow this false hope...What would be good is any stats on what percentage of 'breakthroughs' actually make it to mass manufacturing and widescale adoption...And once you get to market, like VHS and Betamax, the better system doesn't always survive. I never got my house robot or my flying car I was promised decades ago...lesson learned.
More than the max takeoff weight is consideration of the max landing weight. In a traditional liquid fuel aircraft, the landing gear and subsequent structure are designed for a landing weight which is quite a bit less than the max takeoff weight. Upon landing, there are significant additional forces that are applied to the structure. In a typical aircraft, the fuel can be dumped to ensure that the max landing weight is not exceeded resulting in structural damage and potential crashes.
Was about to say the same. Liquid fuel has the advantage of losing weight as you go, so MTOW is higher than the MLW. If using batteries sure, you get energy, but you're still as heavy as you were when taking-off. Hence batteries as is can't be the choice for airliners. Small planes, yes. Large, no.
@@CrawfordAutomation To aircraft people...this is just common knowledge but IS overlooked by many outside of the industry who dream of electrifying aircraft. They also forget that to fly in the US you must have at a minimum a 30 minute fuel reserve...so any range estimation needs to be reduced by this amount which makes the current small aircraft that are available only good for 1/2 hour flight times or thereabouts and makes the possibility of larger craft that much more impractical. Even if battery technology improves 10 fold...it's still not going to work for large commercial aircraft as the energy density per lb just can't compete with Jet A and never will.
Solid state lithium batteries have been around for a while. They used to be made of a lithium slug cathode surrounded by a copper iodide/iodine anode. It was a primary battery of very low current. The newer ones use a glass electrolyte and are rechargeable. Same issue, low current per area.
But without lithium in the new batteries, it less combustible and doesn't have the "bloating" problem lithium batteries has. Wouldn't you say that it's much more usable and not have same issues?
I think the move in the automotive sector will be to make the battery half the size rather than trying to go twice (or more) as far. In addition to keeping the price down as the battery is the most expensive part of an EV, keeping the size down you can increase cabin or storage room and keep the weight of the car down which is the biggest culprit to going farther.A Tesla model S with a 1200lb battery downsized to 600lbs could be as much as 60 miles extended.
I have heard people complain about electric vehicles going far further than needed for short commutes, being too luxurious, and/or having far more performance than needed. Based on the theoretical energy output, it sounds like cars will get to highway speeds slowly for an EV, but if it is affordable, people won’t complain given gas prices. Scalability would be an issue if the elements are as tough, toxic, and/or unethical to get as cobalt and/or lithium. (Granted, all cars use a significant amount of metal regardless, but the point still stands.)
@@alexanderrobins7497 My understanding is that most of the metal in a car is usually iron (as the main component of steel), and that iron is usually so cheap and easy to mine that it's not considered worth recycling.
A battery with increased capacity(which can go twice as far) itself means a lower weight. If you don’t want range just decrease the number of cells, which it turns means lower weight. Capacity density or colloquially called capacity (usually measured by Energy density) means Watts/kg.. higher the capacity lower the mass
I would say a mix, people want longer ranges so keeping a portion of the increased capacity of the more efficient battery would still give weight savings while extending the range. But the biggest hurdle is charging, people that do long distance drives will require a system that is as quick to refuel as getting gas is and as easy to find places to refuel, the current charging networks are a fucking JOKE with many units regularly out of service and many more operating at de-rated levels resulting in slower charging. Until the charging infrastructure is there and the batteries can handle 5-10 minute full charges the electric car will never be able to replace the ICE car.
Ricky, temperatures at cruising altitude, FL320 = -40°F or C, so, you are flying to Europe, those NASA batteries have to be inside the pressure hull of the aircraft. Also, planes are regularly left out overnight, in Winnipeg - West, unheated
NASA didn't invent CAT Scans, it was a joint venture between a British Electrical Engineer and a South African physicist that later moved to the US after inventing the CAT scan in South Africa.
@@jojokunnath47people who look for credibility in videos. I tuned out cos he didn’t get it correct. If you can’t get the name of NASA correct why else should I listen to what you say?
Well done. One thing I never see in a discussion of how batteries operate is the electric fields and how they drive the electrons and ions back and forth and how they keep them sequestered when you aren't charging or discharging. Could you please work out an explanation of how batteries work that includes electric fields? Thank you.
they dont drive electrons 'back and forth', the chemical composition, and the presence of an anode and cathode causes negative charge to accumulate on one side, and the other side positive. when completed in circuit then electrons free to flow in one direction, from the negative round the circuit to the positive. when not connected they are held inside, not free to flow. the only 'electric field' is the charge difference between anode and cathode.
To clarify.. passenger airlines cruise at altitudes where the air temp is around -50 degrees F. So these batteries will still need Temperature management (as well as the passengers). Where will that energy come from?
When the engines are running and current is being pulled from the batteries, that flow through their internal resistance generates heat which, with insulation, can keep them warm, and might be used to heat the cabin as well.
@@Hyfly13 I guess they´ll figure out how to reserve a certain percentage of energy for heating. You have passengers, who also don´t want to freeze, so I don´t think that will be a major issue for guys who went to the moon, lol
It is always the same bs. Batteries are the perfect example for a trade-off triangle; there will never be a "game changer" battery. Pretty easy to gets clicks tho as most people are insanely gullible and too lazy to actually do some research on their own.
I feel this is one of the more promising high performance battery developments going on, along on with graphene-aluminum. These might make the turboprop side of the airlines much cheaper and popular with the public, being near silent but they arent going to come close to the speed or altitude of a turbofan.
When he was showing the 737, Cessna was what I was thinking. This could definitely change private aviation, even if it doesn't change commercial aviation just yet.
@@sinocte There's a lot of drawbacks to electrifying GA aircraft with the way most people use them. Best case scenario you'll see maybe half the ratio of what ICE:EV looks like in the automotive world, if the price per hour gets down to competing with ICE.
I always tell people the biggest bummer with not tring super hard to go into space is the technology that comes out tring to get there. It really is amazing what has come out of the race for space. Thanks for another interesting video.
Don't forget airliner range also has to include things like diversion to next suitable airport and a half hour or more of dwell time in case the destination airport gets fogged in or gets closed because of an incident. This changes your back of the envelope calculations dramatically.
@@renedekker9806no, but you’re not burning fuel which reduces your weight. Batteries weigh the same no matter their charge. And landing weight (and takeoff weight) determines your cargo and passenger capacity.
@@notreallyme425 _"(takeoff weight) determines your cargo and passenger capacity"_ - indeed. As long as your landing weight is not higher than the takeoff weight, it does not matter for cargo and passenger capacity. It just matters for the length of the runway you can land on.
Metallic Lithium is flammable. If i remember my chemistry it catches fire if immersed in water (like Sodium: did you chem teacher demonstrate that at school? Lithium should be more reactive than that) So it won't leak, but if a battery gets punctured in a crash and water gets in, there would still be a fire risk. Don't throw the battery into a bucket of water after you strive that nail through it! But good news for Hollywood: you can still have your flaming car wrecks, you just have to do them involving water as well Assuming i remember my schooldays chemistry correctly...
Exactly. And in water lithium makes hydrogen that will easily explode in closed space. Rather immerse the battery in silicone oil or lithium crease than water.
Great analysis - especially in looking behind the paper. Yes, I agree that short-haul would be the most practical use for electric planes in commercial aviation BUT, you also need quick turn-around time and a 1C charge is not going to get you there. Another issue I was just thinking about is where you need to put the batteries - in the wings. This would make them very difficult to access could prevent you from doing a battery swap.
Are you dumb? Same problem all other high Wh/kg batteries have: Rare elements. Selnium = useless for mass production. Selenium is very rare. Is MORE rare than Silver by ~50%... Hello? Rarer than SILVER folks. This will NEVER work. Make it out of Barium or some such toxic material we need to clean up anyways.
I worked for a major aerospace company that developed a capacitor based "battery". Had all of the abilities of standard batteries at the time and could charge up in mere seconds, but I heard (different division so only heard scraps of info) that the major problem was damage tolerance. If the damage was extreme it could discharge all at once, which could be quite hazardous to the occupants.
I feel like this combined with some advancements of capacitor technology might be the right blend. You don't need a ton of rapid discharge from your battery, you can do that with a capacitor that the battery recharges. This would be great for things like takeoff power. This, however, might not be great in the case of a plane being made to go-around they would need to wait until they have enough capacitor availability to do another go-around if required.
That doesn't change the fact that you still need the Watt-hours to actually reach your destination. Plus the batteries could deliver enough power for takeoff in itself, so all you are doing is just adding a lot of mass. Capacitors have very low energy density, so I doubt they could even last for takeoff.
@@bobthegoat7090 Capacitors have come a really long way. There are some early versions of supercapacitor vehicles like motorcycles that already exist. These are obviously not planes, but there isn't anything I know of that inherently means they have to be big and heavy. They also would be built for the use they are given. I'm not an engineer, just a pilot, so if I'm wrong then I'm wrong but it does feel like capacitors are not given the attention they could be in terms of future of electric vehicles.
@@teamcoltra Yes, maybe capacitors could play a role in motorcycles and cars that need to archive extreme acceleration, however the only advantage a capacitor has is power output, which is simply not important beyond a certain point in a commercial airplane. Maybe military planes, but I doubt they would go electric in the near future. Then again, I am not an engineer either and not even a pilot. My area of expertise lies in electronics and hobby engineering. So nothing to say I am more right than you are.
@@bobthegoat7090 To be clear I'm not saying ONLY capacitors, I'm saying if a solid state battery can't put out enough power for the important phases of flight then you could have capacitors that give it a boost for takeoff, go-arounds, and any abrupt climbs that would need to happen. Think of it like the solid fuel booster on a rocket, it gets the plane off the ground (or helps get the plane off the ground) while the battery can then take over for the rest of the flight. The complaint in the video is that these solid state batteries would be poor choices for large commercial aircraft because they wouldn't have the power to get them off the ground (but might have the power to sustain flight) so I'm thinking capacitors as a way to bridge that gap in this specific usecase.
I can only imagine what this looks like. My last job before I started down my spine surgery warpath was working for Texas Instruments running 6", 8" and 10" steppers. This was back in the old days when you actually had to handle the wafers by hand, at least for inspection, cleaning and testing purposes. The wafers were fed into the stepper in boats; but, the proper mask had to be loaded into the machine to put the proper pattern on the proper wafer at the right time. As the photo lithography was done, it had to be inspected under a high power microscope, and thus hand handled. I had to carry certain wafers across the fab for other tests as well. In the old days we used vacuum pens to move wafers through some of these steps. I loved looking at each layer as it was built up. Photo was probably the busiest station in the fab. I just wish I'd been able to keep it up as I really enjoyed it.
Love your channel, keep up the good work ! For decades we have heard of these new energy storage technologies, but few ever seem to make it into production. I would love to see you make a video of why this industry continues to fail to meet our needs and develop true breakthroughs. Why do these technologies keep failing to make it to the market? Electric motors are so efficient and powerful, but energy storage is always holding them back. It's so frustrating !
Some are the same as with graphene: 1. companies want to show their best results. 2. the lab isn't the real world. 3. it's hard to produce in large quantities. 4. price/economics. Prices of existing battery solutions keep falling because of large and large production volumes, when you are playing catch up to them how do you reach the large production volumes to be able to compete ?
These companies hype up the market because that's how they get funding. A solid state battery is finally heading to commercial scale manufacturing as well speak but it took years of work in material science to get there. I think with AI and advanced computer modeling we will start seeing faster break throughs. Quantum computing will accelerate material sciences rapidly once that actually gets to viability as well.
If it was "good work" he would actually ask: CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE ANY OF THESE BATTERIES? Answer? No. Same problem all other high Wh/kg batteries have: Rare elements. Selnium = useless for mass production. Selenium is very rare. Is MORE rare than Silver by ~50%... Hello? Rarer than SILVER folks. This will NEVER work. Make it out of Barium or some such toxic material we need to clean up anyways.
It's because energy density is just one metric, there are many other critical ones, like power density, cycle life, cost, safety, temperature sensitivity, manufacturability. Usually cycle life and cost is where they fail, before mass production even comes into the picture. And if one is ready for mass production, that still takes a long time to set up. For example Tesla bought Maxwell Technologies in early 2018 for it's dry electrode (not solid state) tech, that was at the time ready for mass production. Yet, Tesla is just now starting to reach meaningful production volume. One problem they talked about was dust. As the electrode is a powder, not a liquid, it can turn into dust. It's just ta tiny amount in a lab, you won't even notice, and not an issue in small scale either, but in a large factory that tiny amount of dust becomes a lot, and causes all kinds of problems. A long series of problems like this have to be solved as production scales up.
They did creater a solid state battery about 15 years ago. Not sure why it has taken that long to essentially re-release the same idea, but good to see it being revisited. It would change the game in terms of safety and battery life.
I’m not sure if someone has already brought this up, but I question your average airline flight ranges. In aviation, for safety they build into each flight time (and therefore; fuel) the allowance for a flight to reach its destination, fly an approach, conduct a missed approach procedure, fly to an alternate, plus 45 minutes of additional flying time. The distance that an alternate airport is from the original destination varies, and can be in the hundreds of miles. Also, the choice of an alternate varies based on the suitability of the weather conditions at the alternate airports. In other words, if the average flight is 500nm or 1500nm to go from point a to point B, those numbers need to be increased to include the above mentioned additional requirements to also include going to point C, plus 45 minutes. Were they incorporated into your calculations? They are developing electric commercial aircraft, but they are nowhere near capable enough for practical use, yet. Air Canada signed a contract to purchase 30 ES-30 electric 30 passenger airplanes advertised to have a range of 200-400 kilometres (100-200nm-ish). Based on the alternate fuel/range requirements, the effective point A to point B distance would be 50-150nm if you’re lucky. That is a failure of concept right from the beginning. What electric aviation also needs to figure out is how they’re going to power anti-ice/de-ice systems which is currently provided by ducted hot air fed from the turbine engines. With no turbines, there will have to be a MASSIVE amount of heat created from another source. Also another issue is coming up with a non-gasoline auxiliary power unit (APU) which is an absolute necessity for redundancy and not to mention it is a power source used on every flight. Lastly, they need to figure out how to charge an electric airliner’s batteries within 30 minutes or else airlines operating electric planes will have major ground delays and will need to seriously adjust their scheduling. Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% in support of a move to electric, but I feel as though they’re not asking enough people on the front lines (pilots) for input. I definitely understand that technology is rapidly improving, but we are still incredibly far away from
I think we really need to revisit lighter than air airships as a means of intercontinental cargo and passenger transport. These could be solar powered and fully electric, using hot air (like hair dryers, electric space heaters, and other electrical air heating systems) contained in lightweight polymer spaceframe bulkhead compartments (preferably transparent/translucent to maximize solar heat gain) with electric motors for turbine or propeller propulsion.
@@CaptainRon1913 For cargo there could be numerous advantages, like cheaper shipping to remote or difficult access locations without ports or reliable roads such as mountain tops, forests, conflict areas, and direct shipping to refugee camps, military bases, ships, submarines, factories, and trainyards. For passengers there could be many amenities similar to cruise ships, in addition to island and ocean exploration along the way. Falling off the airship into the ocean (at low altitude) would be less likely a death sentence as it is with most cruise ships. Maybe someday.
I agree. The disasters were sensationalized at the time and fixed wing aircraft actually had a worse track record, the deaths in fixed wing were just by ones or twos and that doesn’t sell papers. Airships haven’t been worked on much since the early 1920’s, and fixed wing aircraft performed poorly in weather at the time too. I’m sure some modern development would fix the problem like it has for fixed wing. The slow flight times would be bad for people transport, but for goods, it’s almost as fast as trucking but with way less energy cost. They are faster than trains and ships. Ships would still be used for the sheer volume, trains for large shipments of heavy cargo. But imagine most 18-wheelers being off the road. Airships wouldn’t be used for regular transportation, probably more like cruise ships. An EV dirigible solves the takeoff problem and only requires minimal thrust as it doesn’t have to maintain a minimum speed to stay aloft.
Where it might make sense is in large airships. These aircraft would suffer no extra stresses from LW = TOW, there would be no need to pump fuel or ballast to trim; CoG would be fixed. Gas, or water ballast, could be released if necessary. The battery could even be an auxiliary/emergency power source as solar cells could be built into the fabric.
Capacitors have only about 3% of the capacity of a similar sized lithium battery. Their advantage is almost limitless cycles and fast charging, but they have little use in powering motors.
Just found your channel, AWESOME! I dont subscribe often but to you I have. Have you made a vlog on E-vehicles and issues etc with them? I will check your site. Ciao
Interestingly, DJI's Agricultural drones have batteries that are 33C, pretty insane, charging to full in only 9 minutes while pulling 9KW at the wall. It is a 600WH battery(30 000 mAH)
Toyota are also a part of something I'm finding more interesting. They haven't been "dragging their feet", they've been looking at a potentially much better option. The solid state battery stuff is amazing, but their focus on ammonia powered engines is looking far more promising. Not just with cost and efficiency, but on the whole "green tech" stuff they're all trying to move towards. Well worth looking into.
As a Retired Airline Captain, it's not just getting from Point A to Point B. You have to have enough energy to go from Point A to Point B, shoot an approach and if you miss...then fly to your Alternate Airport...shoot an approach. And if you miss, then fly for at least 45 minutes before you run out of fuel (or battery). Many times I flew to Los Angeles and our alternate was Las Vegas. I personally liked to carry 2 hours of fuel beyond my Alternate airport. So a 550nm range on a B-737 isn't going to cut it.
I think there is a possibility that when Level 5 or 4 automation for cars becomes a reality you might see more people just drive to their location despite the extra road time, just to avoid having to be there so early prior to take off, or other difficulties you can have going through the airports.
@@dexterford8094 And imagine if you can have your car drop you off at the train station, then drive itself home. Then do the reverse when you return. Or, more likely, Ubers and Lyfts will be automated and much less expensive, so most people will use them exclusively rather than own their own vehicles.
@@davidmackie3497 ... LOL. I already have a wife who will do that for me so don't need an expensive robot car. Actually, I think I would be quite anxious riding in a driverless car.
two problems with your math on 500 miles for short range flights. 1) Most airplanes carry extra fuel that allows them to circle the airport for quite a while in case of emergency or air traffic delays. So they for safety most planes would want to have around 100 miles of 'buffer' so BEST case scenario an electric plane would only be able to travel 400 NM. 2) Max take off weight INCLUDES passengers and cargo. the main source of income on passenger flights is not the passengers it is the additional cargo that they can squeeze in above the weight of the passengers and their luggage. If you replace the engines with something that weighs a lot more they will lose cargo capacity and not make as much if any profit.
Batteries are one of, if not THE single most important things that make or break future technology, but also the most overlooked by the general public. I strongly believe that if we can get a homerun with battery technology that makes the leap similar to when Lithium Ion batteries were discovered, that will be the pushing point that shoots us into the next stage of the technological era.
This battery boasts an energy density of ½kWh/kg. That's still far too low compared to the alternatives (petrol/gasoline 13.1 kWh/kg, ethanol 8 kWh/kg, methanol 6 kWh/kg)
I think solid state batteries would have a more promising application in locomotive engines than in aircraft. Better batteries might lead the better EVs in a few years. But, locomotive engines could almost use solid state batteries now. They already have electric drivetrains and battery packs could be in swappable railcars that would need fast charging. So, it could save a huge amount of diesel fuel.
Over the last few years, there has been so many announcements concerning battery efficiency. Every single one has been quietly relegated to a single category. Most of the companies I believe had the same intention as well, generate investor funding then sell the company. All the above have been competing with the few companies surrounding Tesla. Just about every announcement has stated that their product will trounce anything that Tesla will ever produce, and, it will be on the market in 3-5 years. Inevitably, they all fall into one category: VAPORWARE. If Tesla switches to the same battery as Toyota, follow that.
Few years ago when I was walking to my highschool in the winter time, my phone would not turn back on because it was so cold out, when I mean cold, we talking about even in the low 10⁰F-20⁰F, sometimes it would go low as -19⁰F. So this could be very practical in the colder regions for sure. This is coming from a north Eastern perspective near Philly & NYC.
NASA is great for out of the box ideas, though there are a lot of bugs to iron out yet, it looks promising. There a lot of safety issues to look after too for lithium ion. A lot of catastrophic damage from runaway battery fires will make it harder to insure these great “green” vehicles. (Burning cars are not good for the environment either. And the fact that is sometimes not one, but multiple vehicles and the structures they’re in. EV burns and your house is gone too. )
Uh? Say what? Selenium... Rarer than Silver by 50%! Hello? Earth calling reality here... NASA is looking for a battery to replace the batteries for SPACE stations and other SPACE applications. NOT for Joe six pack. Fire from battery fire is a MASSIVE problem for a space station. Why the current batteries on the Space station do not HAVE any electrolyte.
2Bit, I love your channel. I joined the STEMS when Sputnik went up (yeah, that old), and I have to say that you are the Neil deGrasse Tyson of engineering. You take complex technical engineering and explain it well with passion and excitement.
Could we PLEASE get all TH-cam tech vloggers to agree to never, ever use the phrase “game changer” again? Linear, incremental improvements in existing tech aren’t “game changing”.
Fun fact, nasa has helped battery tech in the past aswell: Black & Decker, which really did invent cordless power tools, worked with NASA to develop tools that would work not only on batteries, but without working against the astronaut - like trying to spin the astronaut in the opposite direction in which the astronaut was trying to turn a bolt.
Wow. I think that’s the first time in TH-cam history where someone has said “The answer will surprise you” and had been right. I fully expected this whole video to be touting how great and revolutionary and amazing this new battery will be. I’m glad you’re realistic.
I did a similar thought experiment based on al-ion batteries (that use aluminium instead of lithium for 3 electrons per atom instead of 1) and using an old Lockheed super constellation aircraft. The constellation from 1960s has a range of around 4000 miles and used 10.5 tons of fuel. That plus tanks, oil, oil tanks and replacing the old Rolls Royce engines (which weigh in at 4 times the 2mw wright electric motor made in Germany) and replacing the efficiency of just 26% (an estimate) with 96% would mean that we could make an electric version of the super constellation with the same weight and a range of around 1500 miles at a cruising speed of 300 mph. This is using tech being developed in Australia (gmg's aluminium ion battery currently in testing) and Wright's electric motors from Germany, combined with an American turboprop airframe. If you sacrifice speed, you get a hell of a lot more range.
'BATTERYLESS BATTERIES': To help power equipment in outer space: Potential endless energy source basically anywhere in this universe: a. Small aluminum cones with an electrical wire running through the center of the cones, cones spaced apart (not touching I'm thinking) but end to end. b. Electromagentic radiation energy in the atmosphere interacts with the aluminum cones. c. Jostled atoms and molecules in the cone eventually have some electrons try to get away from other electrons of which those electrons gather at the larger end of the cone, of which also creates an area of positive charge at the smaller end of the cone. d. The electron's in the wire are attracted to the positive end of the cone and the positive 'end' in the wire are attracted to the negatively charged end of the cone. e. Basically a 'battery' has been created inside the electrical wire itself, different areas of electrical potential. Basically a 'wire battery' or a 'batteryless battery', however one wanted to call it. f. Numerous cones placed end to end increases the number of 'batteries' in the wire. (In series to increase voltage, in parallel to increase amperage). * Via QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby electromagnetism interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules, one would have to find the correct 'em' frequency for the correct material being utilized for the cones. The shape of the cones could also come into play. The type and size of the wire as well as the type and thickness of the insulation between the cones and the wire would also be factors. * Of course also, possibly 2D triangles made up of certain materials with a conductor going down through the center of the triangle could possible achieve the same 'batteryless' battery system. * Plus possibly with the 2D concept, layered 2D's that absorb different energy frequencies, thereby increasing the net output.
I got very low hopes. This sounds like just another headline like “graphine”. If anyone can make SSB for the mass market, it’ll probably be Toyota YEARS from now.
Just wondered; other than rolled manufacture - why aren't the individual batteries in the battery pack square with rounded corners, to fill the available space? Round individual batteries probably make sense in some way I'm unaware of, but isn't there a significant amount of volume lost? (10:36)
Im so sorry this happened to you. As soon as i saw the car cut a cross i could tell what was about to happen. Breaks my heart to see someone in this kind of situation. My sister went through something similar and it was horrifying. Hope you are able to make a good recovery and get back on the bike soon. First time viewer of your channel. But i would never wish that on anyone. Good luck!
A battery does not necessarily get safer because it has no flammable components. When the battery fails, the energy has to go somewhere. Current gen Li-Co batteries re-ignite the electrode with the energy discharge. Some solid state batteries get hot enough to severely weaken steel or melt some aluminum alloys, and of course ignite plastics and fabrics nearby. Driving a nail through this battery when fully charged would end no better than running a nail through a Li-Co battery.
@15:20 you've just described an aluminum air battery. Lots of density but like emptying an Olympic sized pool with a drinking straw. Thanks. Great presentation, narration and production.
Realistically electric passenger airliners need at least 2 things: #1. Superconducting electrical motors. The power density of SCEM just blows everything else away - it's why the Navy is using it to electrify their destroyers. #2. Probably some kind of molten electrolyte metal air chemistry battery. MEMA type batteries are bleeding edge in the battery field and far surpass even the wildest expectaions of lithium air cells.
You have to remember that the weight of a 737 is calculated on it being a liquid fuel powered aircraft and the engines, hydraulic systems and structural beams are very heavy. With composite technology replacing structural beams and fly-by-wire replacing much of the hydraulic needs and much of the skeletal structure being weight-reduced by converting the aircrafts structure to integrated battery forming structures, then much of the structural metal which supported fuel-laden wing tanks and engine pods can be removed as well.
This is still possible for aviation, just not the aviation you're thinking. One of the current pushes is to bring back blimps for various applications. They don't have the high energy requirements of planes, since they're naturally boyant, they just need energy for basic propulsion. So these are actually a godsend for them, especially where ignition would arguably be a bigger problem.
Cheers Ricky. I don't know how absolutely accurate all of your data is, I'll leave that to the experts, but your presentation certainly gives us all a glimpse of what is to come and great hope for the future. Thank you. I hate it when my phone gets hot!! Oh, I have been running a "lead crystal" 150 A/Hr deep cycle battery for a few years with good outcomes. I guess that fits into solid state /gel tech somehow.
Another point is the maintenance costs. Electric motors don’t need nearly the same amount of maintenance compared to fuel burning engines. Combustion leaves deposits, magnetism doesn’t effect the object it’s pulling at any macro scale.
The best market to target for electric flight is parachuting. There are over 1000 dropzones on earth with multiple planes that simply takeoff, reach the right altitude, throw the passengers out and then land at the same airstrip. Any company that can reduce maintenance costs and reduce the time it takes to get 8-12 people to 14,000ft has a multi billion dollar market begging for disruption.
Well explained video, but has there actually been any new information from SABERS in a while? The last paper is 57 days ago, and I can't find any new press releases either since then.
Big thing missing from the airliner evaluation, is the weight of the battery. When a plane uses fuel it gets lighter, a battery doesn't get lighter as you fly.
You forgot one HUGE aspect of jet engines. The thermal energy of combustion (heat) is necessary for sufficiently high tailpipe discharge velocity. The speed of sound (which increases with temperature) is the limiting factor in tailpipe velocity, hotter = faster. This is generally called stagnation or choke. Driving a ducted fan with a electric motor that produces no heat cannot achieve jet-engine like duct discharge velocity without some massive energy sapping tricks, like electric heaters/plasma/multi stage compression, or burning fuel in the tailpipe (afterburner). This limits the theoretical electric airliner speeds to about 300-or maybe 350 mph. Bucking a 125Kt headwind is going to be a huge battery draining problem. In fact, we are better off driving props with electric motors, than jets.
This sounds really great! I do wish that you hadn't at 16:00 taken what you say is an educated guess based on the reported charge rate (which can be considered the minimum, with an unknown maximum), done calculations based on that, and then stated the result as if it was a factual maximum instead of once again saying "at least X". Also you didn't compare the cycle degradation from sulfide shuttling to similar effects in current battery tech -- Lithium Ion batteries definitely lose capacity over time, so I'm a little disappointed at the lack of comparison there too.
ED is doing a good job. who owns this money. this kind of money should be kept in a bank unless it is black. it is hard to believe this is hard-earned money.
Hi! Nice video. A battery has the same weight ni matter how full or empty it is. The fuel that is used reduces tge weight of the plane and changed its range. Did you take that into account? A plane has still sime fuel at its destination. Is the maximum range with the battery including a healthy reserve? Thanks for your video.
NASA does a lot of composite and polymer research as well. NASA tech always means lightweight and able to function in extreme environments. In low earth orbit, your classic corvette would quickly become floppy sheets of fiberglass with nothing bonding them together. Many of these inventions translate directly into areas such as commercial aviation. The LGPS sounds could be a deal killer for automotive use, though some kind of CVD (chemical vapor deposition) approach could drastically cut the amount of germanium required and simultaneously increase the efficiency of the battery by making the electrolyte thinner.
The biggest issue for battery usage is actual energy per pound of battery. From nasa's website approximately 500 watt hour per kilo. Diesel/jet a is 138megajoule per gallon which is 7 pounds. The best you can hope for in a thermodynamic heat engine effeciency (50% more or less) from 1 3 cylinder 2 stroke 6 piston opposed piston turbocompound diesel, means that an electric aircraft battery would have to weigh 10x the fuel carried in said diesel to match power output for the same time. This will never work for commercial aviation, speed and range wise. A pound of jet A/diesel is 197 megajoules, 250watthours is 900kilojoules. I would revise my opinion if they ever get lithium/oxygen batteries to an energy density of 2000 watt hours per pound. That would make for a decent replacement for regional turboprop feeder aircraft, but it isn't going to allow high speed transportation over very long distances like a 767 or 777. Math is a harsh mistress for all you electric fanboys. Plus, once you get much better lithium (power density/lifetime) batteries, electric cars make a lot more sense, at least if all the neo-luddite halfwits are kept from interfering with decent thorium breeder reactor development and rollout. Probably 35 years too late for that.
I mean I guess you're partially correct in that no- you're not gonna be able to use these batteries for trans-pacific flights by slapping electric engines and battery on a boeing 737, I Don't know if you accounted for the fuel tank and fuel weight as well but don't think it'd matter. however electricity powered aircrafts tend to have a much more optimized form with a much larger wingspan ratio and slower travel speed, which already exist to travel semi-large distances using the battery technology we've had so far, I wouldn't call it too much of a stretch to make an electric plane that could travel trans-atlantic distances, especially with enough developement time
1. How rare are the NEW elements in this battery. 2. Would they be conflict-free. 3. How will harvesting these elements affect the environment? 5. How easy would it be to implement this to production and scale. 6. Would we need a new infrastructure, or would we be able to utilize the existing infrastructure to make these new batteries? 7. Assuming that you would implement this into EVs, what would be the cost comparison between existing battery packs and the newer ones. The science and engineering behind this is pretty cool but it would never come to scale unless it makes sense economically. And besides, since NASA is the one creating it'll take decades to show up in consumer products and it definitely won't be cheap.
So.... the whole of this video comes down to one question. Which is: How much Lithium is needed to achieve 1000 cycles of 1KWh using this battery technology. Size and energy density seem OK for EVs - but only if the frequent references to Li don't mean that EVs will consume more (currently in short supply) Li per million miles when using these batteries?
This is really good news. I hope they figure out the degradation problem, though we already have a battery that doesn't' degrade...the LPT battery. These are put in the Tesla Model 3. They have less range but if you can have a battery that can last 20-30+ years then I personally wouldn't mind the range cut. With solid state if they can fix the degradation problem, then we can have both range and long-lasting batteries.
If the most used plane is a long range plane even if only 10% of flights they are absolutely needed for there are reasons they are used beyond that which make their range important. Im guessing its logistically easier to have a standard plane you can expect to be able to do every job and that plane able to go to every airfield you reasonably need it too without making many "hops" for refueling. Having an electrical plane with 10% spare energy for flight might also not be sufficient for safety. Also i do remember that rechargeable batteries usually come with overhead control limiting how much of the actual charge you can use as charging near dead batteries is more taxing on their lifespan. And all of that with a prototype engine which won't have the same performance when its mass produced. Beyond flight the low current is probably the biggest issue. Having any task done only half as fast for longer and then having even more time consuming recharge times might make most of what we can use them for unreasonable. I do like it alot though that nasa has come up with a low cost version of the electrolyte, even for spaceflight that might just sometimes be enough and will save some money even if the batteries don't pan out.
I think besides energy density for most non commerical applications, charge cycle lifespan is one of the other biggest factors that would usurp the current battery tech. Its the most common reason people are replacing their entire phone, or the biggest reason an EV trips a warranty claim.
NASA always delivers! Honestly I can never understand why people complain about their funding. If anything, we need to throw more money at NASA and the EPA.
I don't really get how SSB are supposed to charge fast and still have a small power density. Why batteries are good for cars is mostly torque, not power. Another drawback compared to gas in aviation: You can not directly compare the weight of a plane running on gas with the one for a plane running on batteries because during the flight, the gas plane becomes considerably lighter by burning its gas (and get some rocket kick too by ejecting fuel), while the electric plane weights the same all along the journey (except for the negligible E/c² part removed). So the lift you have to apply is on average bigger with an electric plane, even if the plane weights the same in the beginning. Lift to weight ratios are public data and you can make some easy simulations for that.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Save Big on the Atmotube PRO air quality monitor! Use Code: RICKY2023
bit.ly/3r298L4
if i had a dollar for every battery break thru... yawn. they never make it to market at an affordable price...so this is more nonsense
Toyota have been saying that their solid state battery will be available in a year or two for at least the past 8 years. They're also infamous for trying to stop people from wanting to buy a BEV ( think of the truly awful BZ4 for instance). So that's why many people have stopped believing them.
Great video sir! One nitpik though: your Atmo sponsor offer expires on Sep 23rd and its October now. Not sure if you realized that. Keep up the great work here. Love your videos!
@@RWBHere pure B's and at the end of the video he states the problems just as I knew he would. So video a waste of time. Click bait nonsense
0:45 The last A in NASA stands for Administration, not Agency
You mentioned MTOW, but you failed to mention MLW. A key component consistently forgotten about is that currently planes increase in efficiency as duration of the flight continues - because fuel burn directly correlates to a decrease in weight of the aircraft. Unlike current planes, you can't dump battery weight - so now the theoretical MTOW is also the MLW as well.
The first passenger electrics will likely be hybrids.
In which case the fuel will burn at take-off.
That only makes up for the weight of the hybrid fuel, but not the hybrid engine, so advantage over a battery system is lessened, dragging the whole idea of 500 mile flight back towards 'not happening yet'.
Your weight lowers, but drag does not, so the weight loss is just a partial factor, no?
Yep, no matter how efficient batteries get you will never see batteries in commercial long range aircraft because you have to be able to “jettison the fuel weight” to return to the field in an emergency. You can’t dump battery packs on people below but you can dump fuel that just vaporizes.
@@tropicthndr That would not be applicable in a fully electric propulsion aircraft. The takeoff and landing weight will always be roughly the same, so it would always operate within that weight limit negating any need for shedding weight for an emergency landing shortly after takeoff like might be necessary in current aircraft because of fuel weight early in a flight.
Very impressive! It sounds like they still have a ways to go though if they want to use this for flight. 0C sounds cold, but at higher elevations it's actually fairly warm. A mid-western winter will easily get down to -17C or lower. When you're talking airplane altitudes you'll easily see -40C.
The flip side of that is that since you're no longer concerned with the fire hazard, it's fairly straightforward to insulate the battery compartment for temperature control.
They'll just add a heating and cooling system for the battery like what pretty much all electric cars have
And as a bonus you don’t need to heat the battery as much unless it’s optimum performance comes at a similar temperature to the Li-ion. A 15C difference on the low end of the scale.
Tesla’s only get around 1/4 - 1/3rd of their stated ranges below -30c, because of their battery’s +15°c heating needs. It’s why the Canadian gov is paying grants for the rescue/towing sector to come up with a standard for high-voltage, common connector, generators on new tow/rescue truck builds.
Plus, they are fighting Tesla’s idea to make their batteries structurally integral, and irreplaceable, to all their vehicles by 2025. It takes 3-30x the water to put out a EV fire with the current packs that can be removed(or at least accessed).
I don't think keeping the battery warm will be much of a problem. They generate their own heat when discharging (or charging), and like everything else they follow the square-cube law - meaning that a large battery (like in an airplane) has less surface area for heat exchange per unit volume than a small battery. The battery can be brought to the right temperature before takeoff and then kept warm by its own heat. I actually wouldn't be terribly surprised if they require active *cooling* even in flight.
Great video. I think the thing to remember is breakthroughs can take 10-20 years to become commercially viable for mass manufacturing or affordable for consumer use. Look at gps, personal computers, even smartphones with touchscreens. All these breakthroughs will eventually be combined in to a true leap forward step change. Until then companies tweak around the edges.
Moronic video: Same problem all other high Wh/kg batteries have of which we have known about and USED for MANY decades: Rare elements. Selnium = useless for mass production. Selenium is very rare. Is MORE rare than Silver by ~50%... Hello? Rarer than SILVER folks. This will NEVER work. Make it out of Barium or some such toxic material we need to clean up anyways.
This one won't become commercially viable at all because it is made of the wrong metals. They are too expensive and rare.
𝐁𝐎𝐘𝐂𝐎𝐓𝐓 𝐌𝐈𝐃-𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎 𝐀𝐃𝐒
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
viability always shows up very early. this battery absolutely is not viable as there are too many fixed costs and poor design constraints.
I mostly ignore these 'next big thing' 'breakthrough' clickbait videos, you get them every other day...and I don't know what it's doing to some people's mental health who swallow this false hope...What would be good is any stats on what percentage of 'breakthroughs' actually make it to mass manufacturing and widescale adoption...And once you get to market, like VHS and Betamax, the better system doesn't always survive. I never got my house robot or my flying car I was promised decades ago...lesson learned.
More than the max takeoff weight is consideration of the max landing weight. In a traditional liquid fuel aircraft, the landing gear and subsequent structure are designed for a landing weight which is quite a bit less than the max takeoff weight. Upon landing, there are significant additional forces that are applied to the structure. In a typical aircraft, the fuel can be dumped to ensure that the max landing weight is not exceeded resulting in structural damage and potential crashes.
What a very good point.
Was about to say the same. Liquid fuel has the advantage of losing weight as you go, so MTOW is higher than the MLW. If using batteries sure, you get energy, but you're still as heavy as you were when taking-off. Hence batteries as is can't be the choice for airliners. Small planes, yes. Large, no.
That's actually a really important catch, good on you.
@@CrawfordAutomation To aircraft people...this is just common knowledge but IS overlooked by many outside of the industry who dream of electrifying aircraft. They also forget that to fly in the US you must have at a minimum a 30 minute fuel reserve...so any range estimation needs to be reduced by this amount which makes the current small aircraft that are available only good for 1/2 hour flight times or thereabouts and makes the possibility of larger craft that much more impractical.
Even if battery technology improves 10 fold...it's still not going to work for large commercial aircraft as the energy density per lb just can't compete with Jet A and never will.
I doubt you'll be refueling the thing in an hour, either.
Solid state lithium batteries have been around for a while. They used to be made of a lithium slug cathode surrounded by a copper iodide/iodine anode. It was a primary battery of very low current. The newer ones use a glass electrolyte and are rechargeable. Same issue, low current per area.
yup, looks like were back to school with a clock and lemons.. this is a twist but nothing new at all, typical two bit work
But without lithium in the new batteries, it less combustible and doesn't have the "bloating" problem lithium batteries has. Wouldn't you say that it's much more usable and not have same issues?
but you need much bigger batteries as non lithium one hold less energy@@Adyen11234
@@Adyen11234 The new batteries still use lithium for the anode and the electrolyte. The only differences are the solid electrolyte and no cobalt.
It is just the latest new battery of the future, there is one of those every month
I think the move in the automotive sector will be to make the battery half the size rather than trying to go twice (or more) as far. In addition to keeping the price down as the battery is the most expensive part of an EV, keeping the size down you can increase cabin or storage room and keep the weight of the car down which is the biggest culprit to going farther.A Tesla model S with a 1200lb battery downsized to 600lbs could be as much as 60 miles extended.
Yes. Well put. 👍
I have heard people complain about electric vehicles going far further than needed for short commutes, being too luxurious, and/or having far more performance than needed. Based on the theoretical energy output, it sounds like cars will get to highway speeds slowly for an EV, but if it is affordable, people won’t complain given gas prices. Scalability would be an issue if the elements are as tough, toxic, and/or unethical to get as cobalt and/or lithium. (Granted, all cars use a significant amount of metal regardless, but the point still stands.)
@@alexanderrobins7497 My understanding is that most of the metal in a car is usually iron (as the main component of steel), and that iron is usually so cheap and easy to mine that it's not considered worth recycling.
A battery with increased capacity(which can go twice as far) itself means a lower weight. If you don’t want range just decrease the number of cells, which it turns means lower weight. Capacity density or colloquially called capacity (usually measured by Energy density) means Watts/kg.. higher the capacity lower the mass
I would say a mix, people want longer ranges so keeping a portion of the increased capacity of the more efficient battery would still give weight savings while extending the range. But the biggest hurdle is charging, people that do long distance drives will require a system that is as quick to refuel as getting gas is and as easy to find places to refuel, the current charging networks are a fucking JOKE with many units regularly out of service and many more operating at de-rated levels resulting in slower charging. Until the charging infrastructure is there and the batteries can handle 5-10 minute full charges the electric car will never be able to replace the ICE car.
Ricky, temperatures at cruising altitude, FL320 = -40°F or C, so, you are flying to Europe, those NASA batteries have to be inside the pressure hull of the aircraft. Also, planes are regularly left out overnight, in Winnipeg - West, unheated
NASA didn't invent CAT Scans, it was a joint venture between a British Electrical Engineer and a South African physicist that later moved to the US after inventing the CAT scan in South Africa.
FYI, The last A in NASA is 'Administration'
And Geico stands for "Government Employee Insurance COmpany". Who cares?
@@jojokunnath47people who look for credibility in videos. I tuned out cos he didn’t get it correct. If you can’t get the name of NASA correct why else should I listen to what you say?
>The battery is non-flammable!
>The anode is pure lithium metal!
Well, which is it, genius???
Well done. One thing I never see in a discussion of how batteries operate is the electric fields and how they drive the electrons and ions back and forth and how they keep them sequestered when you aren't charging or discharging. Could you please work out an explanation of how batteries work that includes electric fields? Thank you.
they dont drive electrons 'back and forth', the chemical composition, and the presence of an anode and cathode causes negative charge to accumulate on one side, and the other side positive. when completed in circuit then electrons free to flow in one direction, from the negative round the circuit to the positive. when not connected they are held inside, not free to flow. the only 'electric field' is the charge difference between anode and cathode.
𝐁𝐎𝐘𝐂𝐎𝐓𝐓 𝐌𝐈𝐃-𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎 𝐀𝐃𝐒
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
To clarify.. passenger airlines cruise at altitudes where the air temp is around -50 degrees F. So these batteries will still need Temperature management (as well as the passengers). Where will that energy come from?
Yup 0°C is not a great temperature floor
When the engines are running and current is being pulled from the batteries, that flow through their internal resistance generates heat which, with insulation, can keep them warm, and might be used to heat the cabin as well.
we are talking about very energy dense batteries. Where might the energy come from? Possibly from the battery ;-)
@@sikliztailbunch yes but it might not be able to keep its charge in cold weather if it's got to keep itself warm!
@@Hyfly13 I guess they´ll figure out how to reserve a certain percentage of energy for heating. You have passengers, who also don´t want to freeze, so I don´t think that will be a major issue for guys who went to the moon, lol
i've heard this solidstate battery story many times before now, i'd be suprised if this finally makes a big step in the battery capacity increase
Every week for a decade
I guess the biggest struggle might be consistensy and manufacturing so we will need to wait as always.
It is always the same bs. Batteries are the perfect example for a trade-off triangle; there will never be a "game changer" battery.
Pretty easy to gets clicks tho as most people are insanely gullible and too lazy to actually do some research on their own.
I feel this is one of the more promising high performance battery developments going on, along on with graphene-aluminum. These might make the turboprop side of the airlines much cheaper and popular with the public, being near silent but they arent going to come close to the speed or altitude of a turbofan.
If you think the engines are what makes an aircraft loud, you're going to be quite disappointed when they get around to electrifying them.
When he was showing the 737, Cessna was what I was thinking. This could definitely change private aviation, even if it doesn't change commercial aviation just yet.
@@sinocte There's a lot of drawbacks to electrifying GA aircraft with the way most people use them. Best case scenario you'll see maybe half the ratio of what ICE:EV looks like in the automotive world, if the price per hour gets down to competing with ICE.
I always tell people the biggest bummer with not tring super hard to go into space is the technology that comes out tring to get there. It really is amazing what has come out of the race for space. Thanks for another interesting video.
Who I’m earth taught you to speak / write 🤣
Is your 'y' key broken?
Don't forget airliner range also has to include things like diversion to next suitable airport and a half hour or more of dwell time in case the destination airport gets fogged in or gets closed because of an incident. This changes your back of the envelope calculations dramatically.
And maximum landing weight.
𝐁𝐎𝐘𝐂𝐎𝐓𝐓 𝐌𝐈𝐃-𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎 𝐀𝐃𝐒
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
@@RickL_was_here Landing weight does not require energy.
@@renedekker9806no, but you’re not burning fuel which reduces your weight. Batteries weigh the same no matter their charge. And landing weight (and takeoff weight) determines your cargo and passenger capacity.
@@notreallyme425 _"(takeoff weight) determines your cargo and passenger capacity"_ - indeed. As long as your landing weight is not higher than the takeoff weight, it does not matter for cargo and passenger capacity. It just matters for the length of the runway you can land on.
Metallic Lithium is flammable. If i remember my chemistry it catches fire if immersed in water (like Sodium: did you chem teacher demonstrate that at school? Lithium should be more reactive than that)
So it won't leak, but if a battery gets punctured in a crash and water gets in, there would still be a fire risk.
Don't throw the battery into a bucket of water after you strive that nail through it!
But good news for Hollywood: you can still have your flaming car wrecks, you just have to do them involving water as well
Assuming i remember my schooldays chemistry correctly...
Exactly. And in water lithium makes hydrogen that will easily explode in closed space. Rather immerse the battery in silicone oil or lithium crease than water.
Great analysis - especially in looking behind the paper.
Yes, I agree that short-haul would be the most practical use for electric planes in commercial aviation BUT, you also need quick turn-around time and a 1C charge is not going to get you there.
Another issue I was just thinking about is where you need to put the batteries - in the wings. This would make them very difficult to access could prevent you from doing a battery swap.
Are you dumb? Same problem all other high Wh/kg batteries have: Rare elements. Selnium = useless for mass production. Selenium is very rare. Is MORE rare than Silver by ~50%... Hello? Rarer than SILVER folks. This will NEVER work. Make it out of Barium or some such toxic material we need to clean up anyways.
𝐁𝐎𝐘𝐂𝐎𝐓𝐓 𝐌𝐈𝐃-𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎 𝐀𝐃𝐒
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
Swappable wings maybe?
Swappabe brains maybe? Try it out@@KELVIN4TOR
@@KELVIN4TORBecause pilots love the idea of wings that can come off the plane.
I worked for a major aerospace company that developed a capacitor based "battery". Had all of the abilities of standard batteries at the time and could charge up in mere seconds, but I heard (different division so only heard scraps of info) that the major problem was damage tolerance. If the damage was extreme it could discharge all at once, which could be quite hazardous to the occupants.
Why not just have multiple separate units in a sequential way they would all have to fail for that to happen.
I feel like this combined with some advancements of capacitor technology might be the right blend. You don't need a ton of rapid discharge from your battery, you can do that with a capacitor that the battery recharges. This would be great for things like takeoff power. This, however, might not be great in the case of a plane being made to go-around they would need to wait until they have enough capacitor availability to do another go-around if required.
That doesn't change the fact that you still need the Watt-hours to actually reach your destination. Plus the batteries could deliver enough power for takeoff in itself, so all you are doing is just adding a lot of mass. Capacitors have very low energy density, so I doubt they could even last for takeoff.
@@bobthegoat7090 Capacitors have come a really long way. There are some early versions of supercapacitor vehicles like motorcycles that already exist. These are obviously not planes, but there isn't anything I know of that inherently means they have to be big and heavy. They also would be built for the use they are given.
I'm not an engineer, just a pilot, so if I'm wrong then I'm wrong but it does feel like capacitors are not given the attention they could be in terms of future of electric vehicles.
How bout a capacitor powered space ship ?
@@teamcoltra Yes, maybe capacitors could play a role in motorcycles and cars that need to archive extreme acceleration, however the only advantage a capacitor has is power output, which is simply not important beyond a certain point in a commercial airplane. Maybe military planes, but I doubt they would go electric in the near future.
Then again, I am not an engineer either and not even a pilot. My area of expertise lies in electronics and hobby engineering. So nothing to say I am more right than you are.
@@bobthegoat7090 To be clear I'm not saying ONLY capacitors, I'm saying if a solid state battery can't put out enough power for the important phases of flight then you could have capacitors that give it a boost for takeoff, go-arounds, and any abrupt climbs that would need to happen. Think of it like the solid fuel booster on a rocket, it gets the plane off the ground (or helps get the plane off the ground) while the battery can then take over for the rest of the flight.
The complaint in the video is that these solid state batteries would be poor choices for large commercial aircraft because they wouldn't have the power to get them off the ground (but might have the power to sustain flight) so I'm thinking capacitors as a way to bridge that gap in this specific usecase.
I can only imagine what this looks like. My last job before I started down my spine surgery warpath was working for Texas Instruments running 6", 8" and 10" steppers. This was back in the old days when you actually had to handle the wafers by hand, at least for inspection, cleaning and testing purposes. The wafers were fed into the stepper in boats; but, the proper mask had to be loaded into the machine to put the proper pattern on the proper wafer at the right time. As the photo lithography was done, it had to be inspected under a high power microscope, and thus hand handled. I had to carry certain wafers across the fab for other tests as well. In the old days we used vacuum pens to move wafers through some of these steps. I loved looking at each layer as it was built up. Photo was probably the busiest station in the fab. I just wish I'd been able to keep it up as I really enjoyed it.
Love your channel, keep up the good work ! For decades we have heard of these new energy storage technologies, but few ever seem to make it into production. I would love to see you make a video of why this industry continues to fail to meet our needs and develop true breakthroughs. Why do these technologies keep failing to make it to the market? Electric motors are so efficient and powerful, but energy storage is always holding them back. It's so frustrating !
Some are the same as with graphene: 1. companies want to show their best results. 2. the lab isn't the real world. 3. it's hard to produce in large quantities. 4. price/economics.
Prices of existing battery solutions keep falling because of large and large production volumes, when you are playing catch up to them how do you reach the large production volumes to be able to compete ?
These companies hype up the market because that's how they get funding. A solid state battery is finally heading to commercial scale manufacturing as well speak but it took years of work in material science to get there. I think with AI and advanced computer modeling we will start seeing faster break throughs. Quantum computing will accelerate material sciences rapidly once that actually gets to viability as well.
If it was "good work" he would actually ask: CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE ANY OF THESE BATTERIES? Answer? No. Same problem all other high Wh/kg batteries have: Rare elements. Selnium = useless for mass production. Selenium is very rare. Is MORE rare than Silver by ~50%... Hello? Rarer than SILVER folks. This will NEVER work. Make it out of Barium or some such toxic material we need to clean up anyways.
𝐁𝐎𝐘𝐂𝐎𝐓𝐓 𝐌𝐈𝐃-𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎 𝐀𝐃𝐒
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
It's because energy density is just one metric, there are many other critical ones, like power density, cycle life, cost, safety, temperature sensitivity, manufacturability. Usually cycle life and cost is where they fail, before mass production even comes into the picture.
And if one is ready for mass production, that still takes a long time to set up. For example Tesla bought Maxwell Technologies in early 2018 for it's dry electrode (not solid state) tech, that was at the time ready for mass production. Yet, Tesla is just now starting to reach meaningful production volume.
One problem they talked about was dust. As the electrode is a powder, not a liquid, it can turn into dust. It's just ta tiny amount in a lab, you won't even notice, and not an issue in small scale either, but in a large factory that tiny amount of dust becomes a lot, and causes all kinds of problems. A long series of problems like this have to be solved as production scales up.
If I had a buck for every Solid State breakthrough announcement, I'd have enough money to actually invent a solid state battery. Let that sink in
I thought all modern batteries were solid state by definition
They did creater a solid state battery about 15 years ago. Not sure why it has taken that long to essentially re-release the same idea, but good to see it being revisited. It would change the game in terms of safety and battery life.
I’m not sure if someone has already brought this up, but I question your average airline flight ranges.
In aviation, for safety they build into each flight time (and therefore; fuel) the allowance for a flight to reach its destination, fly an approach, conduct a missed approach procedure, fly to an alternate, plus 45 minutes of additional flying time.
The distance that an alternate airport is from the original destination varies, and can be in the hundreds of miles. Also, the choice of an alternate varies based on the suitability of the weather conditions at the alternate airports.
In other words, if the average flight is 500nm or 1500nm to go from point a to point B, those numbers need to be increased to include the above mentioned additional requirements to also include going to point C, plus 45 minutes.
Were they incorporated into your calculations?
They are developing electric commercial aircraft, but they are nowhere near capable enough for practical use, yet.
Air Canada signed a contract to purchase 30 ES-30 electric 30 passenger airplanes advertised to have a range of 200-400 kilometres (100-200nm-ish). Based on the alternate fuel/range requirements, the effective point A to point B distance would be 50-150nm if you’re lucky. That is a failure of concept right from the beginning.
What electric aviation also needs to figure out is how they’re going to power anti-ice/de-ice systems which is currently provided by ducted hot air fed from the turbine engines. With no turbines, there will have to be a MASSIVE amount of heat created from another source. Also another issue is coming up with a non-gasoline auxiliary power unit (APU) which is an absolute necessity for redundancy and not to mention it is a power source used on every flight.
Lastly, they need to figure out how to charge an electric airliner’s batteries within 30 minutes or else airlines operating electric planes will have major ground delays and will need to seriously adjust their scheduling.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% in support of a move to electric, but I feel as though they’re not asking enough people on the front lines (pilots) for input.
I definitely understand that technology is rapidly improving, but we are still incredibly far away from
For aircraft, I suspect a hybrid system might be good. Jet fuel for take off, battery for cruising, or cruising assist.
I think we really need to revisit lighter than air airships as a means of intercontinental cargo and passenger transport. These could be solar powered and fully electric, using hot air (like hair dryers, electric space heaters, and other electrical air heating systems) contained in lightweight polymer spaceframe bulkhead compartments (preferably transparent/translucent to maximize solar heat gain) with electric motors for turbine or propeller propulsion.
No thanks, don't want it to take a week to get from NY to Paris
@@CaptainRon1913 For cargo there could be numerous advantages, like cheaper shipping to remote or difficult access locations without ports or reliable roads such as mountain tops, forests, conflict areas, and direct shipping to refugee camps, military bases, ships, submarines, factories, and trainyards. For passengers there could be many amenities similar to cruise ships, in addition to island and ocean exploration along the way. Falling off the airship into the ocean (at low altitude) would be less likely a death sentence as it is with most cruise ships. Maybe someday.
@@IndigenousEarthling101 except the planet is covered in storms and airships dont do well in bad weather
I agree. The disasters were sensationalized at the time and fixed wing aircraft actually had a worse track record, the deaths in fixed wing were just by ones or twos and that doesn’t sell papers.
Airships haven’t been worked on much since the early 1920’s, and fixed wing aircraft performed poorly in weather at the time too. I’m sure some modern development would fix the problem like it has for fixed wing.
The slow flight times would be bad for people transport, but for goods, it’s almost as fast as trucking but with way less energy cost. They are faster than trains and ships.
Ships would still be used for the sheer volume, trains for large shipments of heavy cargo. But imagine most 18-wheelers being off the road. Airships wouldn’t be used for regular transportation, probably more like cruise ships.
An EV dirigible solves the takeoff problem and only requires minimal thrust as it doesn’t have to maintain a minimum speed to stay aloft.
Where it might make sense is in large airships. These aircraft would suffer no extra stresses from LW = TOW, there would be no need to pump fuel or ballast to trim; CoG would be fixed. Gas, or water ballast, could be released if necessary. The battery could even be an auxiliary/emergency power source as solar cells could be built into the fabric.
I wonder if some of the power for takeoff could be stored in capacitors, and how much of a weight penalty that would end up being
no, because then your hauling dead weight of empty caps
My guess is that you never drove an EV
@@testtesting5088 evs arnt caps
Capacitors have only about 3% of the capacity of a similar sized lithium battery. Their advantage is almost limitless cycles and fast charging, but they have little use in powering motors.
Just found your channel, AWESOME!
I dont subscribe often but to you I have.
Have you made a vlog on E-vehicles and issues etc with them? I will check your site.
Ciao
Another groundbreaking innovation that will change everything? Is that two this week? 😂
Seems he is falling behind *"Mr. Scotty Kilmer"* 🤔
Both of them do too much clickbait for me. Made me unsub from Scotty.
This guy tends to push vaporware, and even straight up scams here and there.
@@BloodAspScotty does it unashamedly on purpose. (“I’m quitting TH-cam!”)
@@xiaoka yeah, it's just not for me. That's fine though, he's always there if I actually need to search anything up and he has anything useful on it.
They also do this so if a tech succeeds they can say "hey see? I predicted this"
Interestingly, DJI's Agricultural drones have batteries that are 33C, pretty insane, charging to full in only 9 minutes while pulling 9KW at the wall.
It is a 600WH battery(30 000 mAH)
Toyota are also a part of something I'm finding more interesting. They haven't been "dragging their feet", they've been looking at a potentially much better option. The solid state battery stuff is amazing, but their focus on ammonia powered engines is looking far more promising. Not just with cost and efficiency, but on the whole "green tech" stuff they're all trying to move towards. Well worth looking into.
Toyota is also launching their solid state battery in the next 2 years.
I was not expecting Toyota to do that, since they said they don't like EV vehicles
Wrong@@IdrisFashan
@@droopy_eyes so we mine lithium but its pollution when we put it back?
@@PazLeBon yep... polluting both at extraction and dumping.
As a Retired Airline Captain, it's not just getting from Point A to Point B. You have to have enough energy to go from Point A to Point B, shoot an approach and if you miss...then fly to your Alternate Airport...shoot an approach. And if you miss, then fly for at least 45 minutes before you run out of fuel (or battery). Many times I flew to Los Angeles and our alternate was Las Vegas. I personally liked to carry 2 hours of fuel beyond my Alternate airport. So a 550nm range on a B-737 isn't going to cut it.
I think there is a possibility that when Level 5 or 4 automation for cars becomes a reality you might see more people just drive to their location despite the extra road time, just to avoid having to be there so early prior to take off, or other difficulties you can have going through the airports.
That is already happening where very fast trains are an option.
@@dexterford8094 And imagine if you can have your car drop you off at the train station, then drive itself home. Then do the reverse when you return. Or, more likely, Ubers and Lyfts will be automated and much less expensive, so most people will use them exclusively rather than own their own vehicles.
@@davidmackie3497 ... LOL. I already have a wife who will do that for me so don't need an expensive robot car. Actually, I think I would be quite anxious riding in a driverless car.
@@dexterford8094LOL, not everyone is as lucky as us, bro!
@@davidmackie3497 ... for the unlucky ones there is Uber which actually might be cheaper than a wife in the long run... but not as much fun.
two problems with your math on 500 miles for short range flights.
1) Most airplanes carry extra fuel that allows them to circle the airport for quite a while in case of emergency or air traffic delays. So they for safety most planes would want to have around 100 miles of 'buffer' so BEST case scenario an electric plane would only be able to travel 400 NM.
2) Max take off weight INCLUDES passengers and cargo. the main source of income on passenger flights is not the passengers it is the additional cargo that they can squeeze in above the weight of the passengers and their luggage. If you replace the engines with something that weighs a lot more they will lose cargo capacity and not make as much if any profit.
Batteries are one of, if not THE single most important things that make or break future technology, but also the most overlooked by the general public. I strongly believe that if we can get a homerun with battery technology that makes the leap similar to when Lithium Ion batteries were discovered, that will be the pushing point that shoots us into the next stage of the technological era.
This battery boasts an energy density of ½kWh/kg. That's still far too low compared to the alternatives (petrol/gasoline 13.1 kWh/kg, ethanol 8 kWh/kg, methanol 6 kWh/kg)
@@oliversissonphone6143 or nuclear)
Good information on current battery technology. Even liked the add for the Atmotube. Subbed for sure! :)
I think solid state batteries would have a more promising application in locomotive engines than in aircraft. Better batteries might lead the better EVs in a few years. But, locomotive engines could almost use solid state batteries now. They already have electric drivetrains and battery packs could be in swappable railcars that would need fast charging. So, it could save a huge amount of diesel fuel.
And they can handle weight like no other form of transportation 👍🏻 good idea
Locomotives can just run off the grid...
One of these days it’s going to be called Project Zeus
Over the last few years, there has been so many announcements concerning battery efficiency. Every single one has been quietly relegated to a single category. Most of the companies I believe had the same intention as well, generate investor funding then sell the company. All the above have been competing with the few companies surrounding Tesla. Just about every announcement has stated that their product will trounce anything that Tesla will ever produce, and, it will be on the market in 3-5 years. Inevitably, they all fall into one category: VAPORWARE. If Tesla switches to the same battery as Toyota, follow that.
NASA didn’t invent the CT scan
How many African children with spoons, will we need to scrape the ingredients off the walls of an iffy mineshaft to make all of this?
None but we will use them anyway.
You know you can help them by raising concerns.
Few years ago when I was walking to my highschool in the winter time, my phone would not turn back on because it was so cold out, when I mean cold, we talking about even in the low 10⁰F-20⁰F, sometimes it would go low as -19⁰F. So this could be very practical in the colder regions for sure. This is coming from a north Eastern perspective near Philly & NYC.
NASA is great for out of the box ideas, though there are a lot of bugs to iron out yet, it looks promising. There a lot of safety issues to look after too for lithium ion. A lot of catastrophic damage from runaway battery fires will make it harder to insure these great “green” vehicles. (Burning cars are not good for the environment either. And the fact that is sometimes not one, but multiple vehicles and the structures they’re in. EV burns and your house is gone too. )
You get in an crash with in an EV, you best hope you're able to walk away....
Uh? Say what? Selenium... Rarer than Silver by 50%! Hello? Earth calling reality here... NASA is looking for a battery to replace the batteries for SPACE stations and other SPACE applications. NOT for Joe six pack. Fire from battery fire is a MASSIVE problem for a space station. Why the current batteries on the Space station do not HAVE any electrolyte.
Though "we fund them" completely, I'm sure they will be "selling you" every single thing they come up with !
One thing you didn't mention is their environmental impact when the batteries reach end of life. Are they easily recyclable?
no
Billions have been spent on Solid State Batteries with tons of promises and no one in the private sector has been able to crack it.
I always felt like graphene supercapacitors would be a path we took. Even with lower density the charge rate and life cycle are definitely attractive.
No you didn’t. You never once had that thought. Why make up stories in yt comments? Who are you even lying too?
2Bit, I love your channel. I joined the STEMS when Sputnik went up (yeah, that old), and I have to say that you are the Neil deGrasse Tyson of engineering. You take complex technical engineering and explain it well with passion and excitement.
Could we PLEASE get all TH-cam tech vloggers to agree to never, ever use the phrase “game changer” again? Linear, incremental improvements in existing tech aren’t “game changing”.
Here's a thought: stop using fue to make planes take off. Create a launch system.
Toyota just came up with an ammonia engine, and it will do less damage to the environment than ev cars.
Fun fact, nasa has helped battery tech in the past aswell:
Black & Decker, which really did invent cordless power tools, worked with NASA to develop tools that would work not only on batteries, but without working against the astronaut - like trying to spin the astronaut in the opposite direction in which the astronaut was trying to turn a bolt.
Wow. I think that’s the first time in TH-cam history where someone has said “The answer will surprise you” and had been right.
I fully expected this whole video to be touting how great and revolutionary and amazing this new battery will be. I’m glad you’re realistic.
I did a similar thought experiment based on al-ion batteries (that use aluminium instead of lithium for 3 electrons per atom instead of 1) and using an old Lockheed super constellation aircraft. The constellation from 1960s has a range of around 4000 miles and used 10.5 tons of fuel. That plus tanks, oil, oil tanks and replacing the old Rolls Royce engines (which weigh in at 4 times the 2mw wright electric motor made in Germany) and replacing the efficiency of just 26% (an estimate) with 96% would mean that we could make an electric version of the super constellation with the same weight and a range of around 1500 miles at a cruising speed of 300 mph. This is using tech being developed in Australia (gmg's aluminium ion battery currently in testing) and Wright's electric motors from Germany, combined with an American turboprop airframe. If you sacrifice speed, you get a hell of a lot more range.
I will believe it when I see it. This has been in development for quite some time. Similar to Fusion it will be real in another 10 years.
Nasa makes something other than cartoons? Interesting. I doubt we will ever see those.
'BATTERYLESS BATTERIES':
To help power equipment in outer space:
Potential endless energy source basically anywhere in this universe:
a. Small aluminum cones with an electrical wire running through the center of the cones, cones spaced apart (not touching I'm thinking) but end to end.
b. Electromagentic radiation energy in the atmosphere interacts with the aluminum cones.
c. Jostled atoms and molecules in the cone eventually have some electrons try to get away from other electrons of which those electrons gather at the larger end of the cone, of which also creates an area of positive charge at the smaller end of the cone.
d. The electron's in the wire are attracted to the positive end of the cone and the positive 'end' in the wire are attracted to the negatively charged end of the cone.
e. Basically a 'battery' has been created inside the electrical wire itself, different areas of electrical potential. Basically a 'wire battery' or a 'batteryless battery', however one wanted to call it.
f. Numerous cones placed end to end increases the number of 'batteries' in the wire.
(In series to increase voltage, in parallel to increase amperage).
* Via QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby electromagnetism interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules, one would have to find the correct 'em' frequency for the correct material being utilized for the cones. The shape of the cones could also come into play. The type and size of the wire as well as the type and thickness of the insulation between the cones and the wire would also be factors.
* Of course also, possibly 2D triangles made up of certain materials with a conductor going down through the center of the triangle could possible achieve the same 'batteryless' battery system.
* Plus possibly with the 2D concept, layered 2D's that absorb different energy frequencies, thereby increasing the net output.
I got very low hopes. This sounds like just another headline like “graphine”. If anyone can make SSB for the mass market, it’ll probably be Toyota YEARS from now.
Amazing video ty! Your style and channel is very good don't change.
Just wondered; other than rolled manufacture - why aren't the individual batteries in the battery pack square with rounded corners, to fill the available space? Round individual batteries probably make sense in some way I'm unaware of, but isn't there a significant amount of volume lost? (10:36)
Im so sorry this happened to you. As soon as i saw the car cut a cross i could tell what was about to happen. Breaks my heart to see someone in this kind of situation. My sister went through something similar and it was horrifying. Hope you are able to make a good recovery and get back on the bike soon. First time viewer of your channel. But i would never wish that on anyone. Good luck!
A battery does not necessarily get safer because it has no flammable components. When the battery fails, the energy has to go somewhere. Current gen Li-Co batteries re-ignite the electrode with the energy discharge. Some solid state batteries get hot enough to severely weaken steel or melt some aluminum alloys, and of course ignite plastics and fabrics nearby. Driving a nail through this battery when fully charged would end no better than running a nail through a Li-Co battery.
@15:20 you've just described an aluminum air battery. Lots of density but like emptying an Olympic sized pool with a drinking straw. Thanks. Great presentation, narration and production.
As always behind the hype it's functionality will take half a century to come out.
Realistically electric passenger airliners need at least 2 things:
#1. Superconducting electrical motors.
The power density of SCEM just blows everything else away - it's why the Navy is using it to electrify their destroyers.
#2. Probably some kind of molten electrolyte metal air chemistry battery.
MEMA type batteries are bleeding edge in the battery field and far surpass even the wildest expectaions of lithium air cells.
Another Great Video, Nice Job guys.
You have to remember that the weight of a 737 is calculated on it being a liquid fuel powered aircraft and the engines, hydraulic systems and structural beams are very heavy. With composite technology replacing structural beams and fly-by-wire replacing much of the hydraulic needs and much of the skeletal structure being weight-reduced by converting the aircrafts structure to integrated battery forming structures, then much of the structural metal which supported fuel-laden wing tanks and engine pods can be removed as well.
The not so slow steady beat of progress. It is amazing what can happen when an industry gets fiscally focused.
This is still possible for aviation, just not the aviation you're thinking. One of the current pushes is to bring back blimps for various applications. They don't have the high energy requirements of planes, since they're naturally boyant, they just need energy for basic propulsion. So these are actually a godsend for them, especially where ignition would arguably be a bigger problem.
Sounds like tech is moving forward, thanks for the update.
Isn’t this from 2022?
I just remenber when NASA invented a Space pen while the russian just use a pencil 😂😂😂😂
Cheers Ricky. I don't know how absolutely accurate all of your data is, I'll leave that to the experts, but your presentation certainly gives us all a glimpse of what is to come and great hope for the future. Thank you.
I hate it when my phone gets hot!!
Oh, I have been running a "lead crystal" 150 A/Hr deep cycle battery for a few years with good outcomes. I guess that fits into solid state /gel tech somehow.
Another point is the maintenance costs. Electric motors don’t need nearly the same amount of maintenance compared to fuel burning engines. Combustion leaves deposits, magnetism doesn’t effect the object it’s pulling at any macro scale.
The best market to target for electric flight is parachuting.
There are over 1000 dropzones on earth with multiple planes that simply takeoff, reach the right altitude, throw the passengers out and then land at the same airstrip.
Any company that can reduce maintenance costs and reduce the time it takes to get 8-12 people to 14,000ft has a multi billion dollar market begging for disruption.
Well explained video, but has there actually been any new information from SABERS in a while? The last paper is 57 days ago, and I can't find any new press releases either since then.
Big thing missing from the airliner evaluation, is the weight of the battery.
When a plane uses fuel it gets lighter, a battery doesn't get lighter as you fly.
You forgot one HUGE aspect of jet engines. The thermal energy of combustion (heat) is necessary for sufficiently high tailpipe discharge velocity. The speed of sound (which increases with temperature) is the limiting factor in tailpipe velocity, hotter = faster. This is generally called stagnation or choke. Driving a ducted fan with a electric motor that produces no heat cannot achieve jet-engine like duct discharge velocity without some massive energy sapping tricks, like electric heaters/plasma/multi stage compression, or burning fuel in the tailpipe (afterburner). This limits the theoretical electric airliner speeds to about 300-or maybe 350 mph. Bucking a 125Kt headwind is going to be a huge battery draining problem. In fact, we are better off driving props with electric motors, than jets.
This sounds really great! I do wish that you hadn't at 16:00 taken what you say is an educated guess based on the reported charge rate (which can be considered the minimum, with an unknown maximum), done calculations based on that, and then stated the result as if it was a factual maximum instead of once again saying "at least X". Also you didn't compare the cycle degradation from sulfide shuttling to similar effects in current battery tech -- Lithium Ion batteries definitely lose capacity over time, so I'm a little disappointed at the lack of comparison there too.
TH-cam interrupting your channel with obnoxious ads so I have to continue reading about this story somewhere else. Thanks for the headline
Toyota beat them to bunch, they announced a breakthrough in Solid state batteries a while ago
ED is doing a good job. who owns this money. this kind of money should be kept in a bank unless it is black. it is hard to believe this is hard-earned money.
Hi! Nice video. A battery has the same weight ni matter how full or empty it is. The fuel that is used reduces tge weight of the plane and changed its range. Did you take that into account? A plane has still sime fuel at its destination. Is the maximum range with the battery including a healthy reserve?
Thanks for your video.
that is actually incorrect, a discharged battery is lighter
@@acakeshapedlikeatrainonatable a little of course but not compared to the fuel of a plane.
> Solid lithium
> Graphene
As soon as I heard this I thought: "Oh well that's gonna be fucking expensive"
NASA does a lot of composite and polymer research as well. NASA tech always means lightweight and able to function in extreme environments. In low earth orbit, your classic corvette would quickly become floppy sheets of fiberglass with nothing bonding them together. Many of these inventions translate directly into areas such as commercial aviation.
The LGPS sounds could be a deal killer for automotive use, though some kind of CVD (chemical vapor deposition) approach could drastically cut the amount of germanium required and simultaneously increase the efficiency of the battery by making the electrolyte thinner.
The biggest issue for battery usage is actual energy per pound of battery. From nasa's website approximately 500 watt hour per kilo. Diesel/jet a is 138megajoule per gallon which is 7 pounds. The best you can hope for in a thermodynamic heat engine effeciency (50% more or less) from 1 3 cylinder 2 stroke 6 piston opposed piston turbocompound diesel, means that an electric aircraft battery would have to weigh 10x the fuel carried in said diesel to match power output for the same time. This will never work for commercial aviation, speed and range wise. A pound of jet A/diesel is 197 megajoules, 250watthours is 900kilojoules. I would revise my opinion if they ever get lithium/oxygen batteries to an energy density of 2000 watt hours per pound. That would make for a decent replacement for regional turboprop feeder aircraft, but it isn't going to allow high speed transportation over very long distances like a 767 or 777. Math is a harsh mistress for all you electric fanboys. Plus, once you get much better lithium (power density/lifetime) batteries, electric cars make a lot more sense, at least if all the neo-luddite halfwits are kept from interfering with decent thorium breeder reactor development and rollout. Probably 35 years too late for that.
A pound of jet A is 19.7 megajoules, not 197. Issue with keyboard period button only working sometime..
Growing weary of these videos with their clickbaity titles. This is the 17th Gamechanging battery breakthrough in the last 2 years.
Don’t forget the room temperature superconductor 😂😂
I mean I guess you're partially correct in that no- you're not gonna be able to use these batteries for trans-pacific flights by slapping electric engines and battery on a boeing 737, I Don't know if you accounted for the fuel tank and fuel weight as well but don't think it'd matter. however electricity powered aircrafts tend to have a much more optimized form with a much larger wingspan ratio and slower travel speed, which already exist to travel semi-large distances using the battery technology we've had so far, I wouldn't call it too much of a stretch to make an electric plane that could travel trans-atlantic distances, especially with enough developement time
1. How rare are the NEW elements in this battery.
2. Would they be conflict-free.
3. How will harvesting these elements affect the environment?
5. How easy would it be to implement this to production and scale.
6. Would we need a new infrastructure, or would we be able to utilize the existing infrastructure to make these new batteries?
7. Assuming that you would implement this into EVs, what would be the cost comparison between existing battery packs and the newer ones.
The science and engineering behind this is pretty cool but it would never come to scale unless it makes sense economically. And besides, since NASA is the one creating it'll take decades to show up in consumer products and it definitely won't be cheap.
So.... the whole of this video comes down to one question. Which is: How much Lithium is needed to achieve 1000 cycles of 1KWh using this battery technology. Size and energy density seem OK for EVs - but only if the frequent references to Li don't mean that EVs will consume more (currently in short supply) Li per million miles when using these batteries?
Hey Ricky . Game changer word is a proprietary word that belongs to The Electric Viking 😂😂😂
This is really good news. I hope they figure out the degradation problem, though we already have a battery that doesn't' degrade...the LPT battery. These are put in the Tesla Model 3. They have less range but if you can have a battery that can last 20-30+ years then I personally wouldn't mind the range cut. With solid state if they can fix the degradation problem, then we can have both range and long-lasting batteries.
If the most used plane is a long range plane even if only 10% of flights they are absolutely needed for there are reasons they are used beyond that which make their range important. Im guessing its logistically easier to have a standard plane you can expect to be able to do every job and that plane able to go to every airfield you reasonably need it too without making many "hops" for refueling.
Having an electrical plane with 10% spare energy for flight might also not be sufficient for safety. Also i do remember that rechargeable batteries usually come with overhead control limiting how much of the actual charge you can use as charging near dead batteries is more taxing on their lifespan. And all of that with a prototype engine which won't have the same performance when its mass produced.
Beyond flight the low current is probably the biggest issue. Having any task done only half as fast for longer and then having even more time consuming recharge times might make most of what we can use them for unreasonable.
I do like it alot though that nasa has come up with a low cost version of the electrolyte, even for spaceflight that might just sometimes be enough and will save some money even if the batteries don't pan out.
I think besides energy density for most non commerical applications, charge cycle lifespan is one of the other biggest factors that would usurp the current battery tech. Its the most common reason people are replacing their entire phone, or the biggest reason an EV trips a warranty claim.
NASA always delivers! Honestly I can never understand why people complain about their funding. If anything, we need to throw more money at NASA and the EPA.
I don't really get how SSB are supposed to charge fast and still have a small power density. Why batteries are good for cars is mostly torque, not power. Another drawback compared to gas in aviation: You can not directly compare the weight of a plane running on gas with the one for a plane running on batteries because during the flight, the gas plane becomes considerably lighter by burning its gas (and get some rocket kick too by ejecting fuel), while the electric plane weights the same all along the journey (except for the negligible E/c² part removed). So the lift you have to apply is on average bigger with an electric plane, even if the plane weights the same in the beginning. Lift to weight ratios are public data and you can make some easy simulations for that.