Lithium Consigned to History

[Pete7]

This looks interesting:

"More important, lithium-ion batteries are heavy"


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...arging-it.html

[sailormed]

Looks interesting, but I do not put much trust in the Daily Mail news.

[sailormed]

I found this article as well:

https://factordaily.com/log9-materia...m-air-battery/

[Dockhead]

Aluminum-air batteries have been around for decades. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alum...%93air_battery

[billknny]

Yeah, the Daily Fail is not exactly a great source...

You did get the part that these "magic" batteries are not rechargable, right???? They all have to be collected and SHIPPED back to the factory and recycled back to raw materials, and then get SHIPPED back to the user... All that extra processing (and shipping) uses a HUGE amount of energy that is totally ignored in the article.

If EVERYTHING they say about these magic batteries is true (and they are not new...) then they will have applications, but not the the transport world and certainly not on cruising boats.

[AndyEss]

Not rechargeable, huh?
I'm glad I didn't waste my time going to the newspaper article. A technical publication, of even a mag like Scientific American, would be a far more credible source for OPs to refer to.

[john61ct]

All those "new miracle battery discovery" clickbait articles, even if scientifically accurate, are many years if not decades away from impacting chemistries currently on the market.

More likely 100% vapourware, will never be developed commercially.

LFP has barely scratched the surface of the **lead** storage marketplace, and it's been in full factory production for a full decade now.

A 500 foot, 8000-ton ship needs over a third of a mile to turn, that's the sort of inertia the battery market has.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by billknny

They all have to be collected and SHIPPED back to the factory and recycled

You mean a bit like milk bottles or gas cylinders.

Originally Posted by AndyEss

Not rechargeable, huh?
I'm glad I didn't waste my time going to the newspaper article. A technical publication, of even a mag like Scientific American, would be a far more credible source for OPs to refer to.

Okay, guilty as charged, I admit I was reading the Daily Wail

Pete

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by AndyEss

Not rechargeable, huh?
I'm glad I didn't waste my time going to the newspaper article. A technical publication, of even a mag like Scientific American, would be a far more credible source for OPs to refer to.

SA is not trustworthy in my opinion either. They have an agenda.

This sounds a lot like the magic of cold fusion all over again. I’m always skeptical when the snake oil is a carefully guarded secret formula.

As noted by others, not rechargeable. Nowhere is there an accounting of the power costs to strip the O2 back off, shipping etc. all of that currently will be predominantly fossil fuel. Until they perfect the perpetual motion machine you still don’t get something for nothing.

[john61ct]

Scientific American has usually been a very objective publication, basing articles on scientific evidence and reality consensus.

Lately, they have been acknowledging the gaslighting prevalent around climate change, to the point of making it seem that deniers have some claims to credibility.

If that's what you mean, I agree they are losing objectivity, but such "false balance bothsidesism" hasn't gone so far that I'd call it an "agenda", that bias has unfortunately become acceptable in mainstream journalism worldwide.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Pete7

You mean a bit like milk bottles or gas cylinders.

Strange analogy to pick. It's nothing like that at all.


There's a huge difference between "recycled" and "refilled".


There's also a huge difference between recycling a single material empty container and a complex composite devlce such as a battery in terms of the cost and practicality of material separation and component re-manufacture.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Scientific American has usually been a very objective publication, basing articles on scientific evidence and reality consensus.

Lately, they have been acknowledging the gaslighting prevalent around climate change, to the point of making it seem that deniers have some claims to credibility.

If that's what you mean, I agree they are losing objectivity, but such "false balance bothsidesism" hasn't gone so far that I'd call it an "agenda", that bias has unfortunately become acceptable in mainstream journalism worldwide.

To many people, they are re-gaining objectivity and hence credibility after years of being shills for the climate alarmism community.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Scientific American has usually been a very objective publication, basing articles on scientific evidence and reality consensus.

.

Science is theory, fact, hypothesis verified by experiment. The one thing it is not is “consensus”. Consensus is agenda and a political phenomenon which is what the science has been corrupted into.

[john61ct]

When the only people disputing the facts are non-scientists, paid shills for commercial interests and their dupes, fair to say there is a consensus among honest scientists.

Tobacco, pharma, chemicals, sodapop & processed food makers, all try the same crap, and lobbyists, politicians, PR/social media/propaganda experts line up for the billions they spend.

Many are pure evil, others just stupid victims, doesn't matter to me, same result, should not be allowed out in polite society.

[a64pilot]

“air” batteries have been commercially used for a long time, Although I know of only tiny ones, zinc air to be specific
https://www.panasonic-batteries.com/...ry-tips-tricks