Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON (AP) ? As 21st century technology strains to become ever faster, cleaner and cheaper, an invention from more than 200 years ago keeps holding it back. It's why electric cars aren't clogging the roads and why Boeing's new ultra-efficient 787 Dreamliners aren't flying high.

And chances are you have this little invention next to you right now and probably have cursed it recently: the infernal battery.

Boeing is the first company to make extensive use in an airliner of technology's most advanced battery ? lithium ion. But a Jan. 7 battery fire aboard a Dreamliner in Boston, followed by a similar meltdown in Japan, led authorities around the world to ground the fleet this month, highlighting a longstanding safety problem that engineers have struggled with.

In 2006 and 2007, more than 46 million cellphone batteries and 10 million laptop batteries ? all lithium ion ? were recalled because of the risk of overheating, short-circuiting and exploding. Additional safety features have been installed since then on lithium ion batteries used in consumer electronics.

As for the electric car industry, lithium ion batteries have proved to have two major drawbacks: They are costly, and they do not allow automobiles to go far enough between rechargings. A123, a maker of lithium ion batteries for electric cars, went bankrupt last year because of poor demand and high costs after receiving a $249 million federal grant.

Lithium ion batteries, which store more energy at a higher voltage and a lighter weight than earlier types, represent the most recent big jump in battery technology. And that took place nearly a quarter of a century ago.

"We need to leapfrog the engineering of making of batteries," said Lawrence Berkeley National Lab battery scientist Vince Battaglia. "We've got to find the next big thing."

But none of the 10 experts who talked to The Associated Press said they know what that big thing will be yet, or when it will come.

"If you crack it ... it'll change the world," said Carnegie Mellon University materials science professor Jay Whitacre.

Batteries are so crucial to a greener energy future that the Obama administration has spent more than $2 billion to jump-start the advanced battery industry, including setting up what some experts say is a mini-Manhattan Project for batteries.

To make the next breakthrough, researchers will have to master complex chemistry, expensive manufacturing, detailed engineering, a variety of different materials, lengthy testing, stringent safety standards and giant cost problems. It involves dealing with liquids and solids, metals and organic chemicals, and things that are in between, said Glenn Amatucci, director of the Energy Storage Research Group at Rutgers University.

"We're dealing with a system that you can imagine is almost alive. It's almost breathing," Amatucci said. "Trying to understand what's happening within these batteries is incredibly complex."

One reason the battery is the slowpoke of the high-tech highway is that it has conflicting functions. Its primary job is to store energy. But it's also supposed to discharge power, lots of it, quickly. Those two jobs are at odds with each other.

"If you want high storage, you can't get high power," said M. Stanley Whittingham, director of the Northeast Center for Chemical Energy Storage. "People are expecting more than what's possible."

On the commercial market, lithium ion batteries are generally ones small enough to fit into cellphones. But to power bigger items ? from a Prius to a 787 ? they get grouped together, increasing the juice they store and provide. That also increases the safety risk, experts say. The lithium ion battery that caught fire in a Boeing 787 weighed 63 pounds and was 19 inches long.

"You can't get around the fundamental thing is that lithium ion batteries are stuffed full of flammable liquid," Whitacre said.

Even one-in-a-million problems with lithium ion batteries can result in many fires because there are billions of them in use now, with dozens sometimes stacked together in a single device.

Experts say lithium ion batteries are more dangerous because their electrolyte, the liquid that allows ions to move between electrodes in the battery, is more flammable than the substance in older type batteries. Those older types include the lead-acid batteries in most cars and the nickel cadmium batteries that are often in video equipment and power tools.

Still, MIT materials science and engineering professor Gerbrand Ceder and others said the safety problems can be fixed.

Change doesn't come often in the battery field.

"The big advances in battery technology happen rarely. It's been more than 200 years and we have maybe five different successful rechargeable batteries," said George Blomgren, a former senior technology researcher at Eveready and now a private battery consultant. "It's frustrating."

Alessandro Volta ? for whom the volt is named ? invented the first useful battery in 1800. That was long before other breakthrough inventions like the internal combustion engine, telephone, car, airplane, transistor, computer and Internet. But all of those developments have seemed to evolve faster than the simple battery.

The lead-acid car battery "has been around for 150 years more or less," Whitacre said. "This is a remarkable testament to first how robust that chemistry is and how difficult change is."

Battery experts are split over what's next. Some think the lithium ion battery can be tinkered with to get major efficiency and storage improvements. Amatucci said he thinks we can get two to three times more energy out of future lithium ion batteries, while others said minor chemical changes can do even more.

But just as many engineers say the lithium ion battery has run its course.

"With the materials in the current lithium ion battery, we are definitely plateaued," Blomgren said. "We're waiting for something to come along that really does the job."

There are all sorts of new type batteries being worked on: lithium-air, lithium-sulfur, magnesium, sodium-ion.

"Right now it's a horse race," Blomgren said. "There's deficiencies in every technology that's out there. Each one of them requires a major solution."

One of the nation's best hopes for a breakthrough, said Battaglia, is John Goodenough, the man responsible for the 1979 breakthrough that led the first commercial lithium ion battery in 1991. He will receive the National Medal of Science at the White House next month.

Goodenough is 90.

"I'm working on it," Goodenough, an engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said Tuesday. "I'm optimistic in a sense that I'm willing to keep working on it. I think we can do some interesting things."

source

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1132360-what-holds-energy-tech-back/
Share on other sites

The oil companies are holding battery tech back. Actually, not holding back more buying up all the tech that could threaten their business model.

Any tech that could replace petrol in cars is going to get bought up and sat on until the oil runs out.

Any battery tech not specifically designed for cars can be put to use on automotive tech. So even if a company or individual develops a battery that powers a smart phone for 20 days full use it still gets suppressed.

It is the same with solar panels. There is a way to make solar panels the size of a car roof that powers the car for all day and with the right battery tech, all night. No way will that see the light of day for he foreseeable future. Further, the gas and electricity companies don't want you to have solar panels on your roof that powers your house for ever.

  • Like 3

Energy tech is slow because ROI (return on investment) is really slow. If a new battery could last twice as long as current ones, or a car could get twice the mileage as current ones, it would be worth the investment. But new tech isn't offering that drastic of improvements, so the high cost of new tech isn't worth it. Changing infrastructure is insanely expensive and slow, so the only way to upgrade to something new is for the savings to be seen almost immediately.

That's what's holding energy tech back. And the deep-down cause of most of it is physics.

  • Like 1

The oil companies are holding battery tech back. Actually, not holding back more buying up all the tech that could threaten their business model.

No it's more like battery tech is pathetic as it is. It simply isn't the future, sorry.

Batteries cost a fortune and they offer mediocre gains year after year.

Any tech that could replace petrol in cars is going to get bought up and sat on until the oil runs out.

Actually the tech to replace petrol is already out there in certain parts of the world.

Honda, Benz, BMW, Hyundai, VW, Fiat, Nissan, Audi and Mazda all have / are testing fuel cell cars in various parts of the world. California has hydrogen filling stations in certain cities, and I'm sure other parts of the world have them too.

If you have the money and you're lucky you can lease a Honda Clarity FCX in california for $600 a month (and that includes insurance against any accidents / malfunctions). Toyota and Benz both plan to make their fuel cell cars commercially available for around $50k in 2014/2015.

Technically these cars are electric and are powered by an electric motor. But instead of having to charge them for 10+ hours every night so you can go 50 miles the next day all you do is take it to a hydrogen fueling station, fill it up in 3 mins and continue on your way. Just like the cars of today.

And before you claim that will never happen because oil companies will suppress it. Guess who owns the hydrogen filling stations in California?

6a00d8341c630a53ef014e885eea0e970d-320wi

It's Royal Dutch Shell. A massive oil company.

  • 2 weeks later...

No it's more like battery tech is pathetic as it is. It simply isn't the future, sorry.

Batteries cost a fortune and they offer mediocre gains year after year.

Actually the tech to replace petrol is already out there in certain parts of the world.

Honda, Benz, BMW, Hyundai, VW, Fiat, Nissan, Audi and Mazda all have / are testing fuel cell cars in various parts of the world. California has hydrogen filling stations in certain cities, and I'm sure other parts of the world have them too.

If you have the money and you're lucky you can lease a Honda Clarity FCX in california for $600 a month (and that includes insurance against any accidents / malfunctions). Toyota and Benz both plan to make their fuel cell cars commercially available for around $50k in 2014/2015.

Technically these cars are electric and are powered by an electric motor. But instead of having to charge them for 10+ hours every night so you can go 50 miles the next day all you do is take it to a hydrogen fueling station, fill it up in 3 mins and continue on your way. Just like the cars of today.

And before you claim that will never happen because oil companies will suppress it. Guess who owns the hydrogen filling stations in California?

6a00d8341c630a53ef014e885eea0e970d-320wi

It's Royal Dutch Shell. A massive oil company.

And how much did RDS get reimbursed to install the infrastructure for hydrogen in California?

Why do you think that propane/LNG/CNG (all far older technologies than hydrogen - and all related) - a relative bargain given current natural-gas prices compared to gasoline, let alone diesel fuel - has gone exactly nowhere outside of - of all places - military fleet usage? (Joint Forces Base Andrews is one of the cleanest - in terms of emissions - military bases around, and it;s far from small. The home of Air Force One runs over HALF their fleet of vehicles on CNG - including three-fourths that would ordinarily be powered by diesel, such as military ambulances and fire trucks.)

Hydrogen fueling faces that same obstacle - even worse, there IS no network of LH pipelines crisscrossing the US - which certainly is not the case with natural gas - which can use the existing pipeline network; yet propane and natural-gas fueling (outside of the military and large fleets) has been a non-starter despite being around (dating back to propane) half my lifetime or longer.

Several Meijer hypermarkets in the Detroit area have natural gas in their filling stations. This makes tons more sense than an H2 infrastructure because of how H2 effects pipelines and other equipment - its molecules are so tiny as to penetrate the structures and degrade them.

With their new EV sedan Tesla has started building high-speed solar charging stations up & down California. While unused they feed the grid, and when charging a vehicle both the grid and solar panels feed the car. They're sized to he net energy-positive, producing more power than used, which pays for the hardware and Tesla owners can recharge their vehicles for free.

- Greed

- Conflict of the interests

Physics, materials science, the laws of economics.......

The oil companies hold patents that are key to the development of alternative to oil energy sources.

Actually, most of the really useful patents are held by DoE and several universities like MIT, C-M etc.

Theory is great & makes fun headlines, but making these techs production ready, economically sound, developing the infrastructure and evading the usual 'Not In My Back Yard' is much, much harder. Some of the worst NIMBY's are environmental groups.

Physics, materials science, the laws of economics.......

I seriously doubt that we have or are near the limits.

For example many years ago there was a technology announced that was going to allow you to charge a mobile phone in a couple of minutes for a full charge that would last all day.

The technology for that involved the arrangement of cells inside a battery iir that allowed for more efficient charging.

Whatever happened to that? Shouldn't we have seen that by now?

Physics, materials science, the laws of economics.......

There was an American inventor who created a method to retrofit all cars so they could run on water.

The man was poisoned and all his work was discredited.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell

There was an American inventor who created a method to retrofit all cars so they could run on water.

The man was poisoned and all his work was discredited.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell

Read hour own sources -

Theory violation: First law of thermodynamics[1][2]

The Meyer Fuel Cell was a sham, simple electrolysis disguised as new tech, and Meyer himself lost a lawsuit by investors charging him with fraud.

This isn't to say that splitting water can't work; there was an advance last week using metal nanoparticles with the H2 driving a fuel cell, but it is VERY far from practicality. Fuel cells are very expensive. That and processing the nanoparticles blows up the economics.

Read your own sources -

Yes, I have read them. The wikipedia page is for general information.

The following is from the article:

At dinner that night, Meyer told them: "The Arabs wanted to offer me $250 million to stop today. You and this lovely family can live in peace and prosperity the rest of your days."

Stephen Meyer recalled a phone call to his brother's home in the 1980s.

"He turned to me and said, 'They just offered me $800 million. Should I take it?'

The Meyer Fuel Cell was a sham, simple electrolysis disguised as new tech, and Meyer himself lost a lawsuit by investors charging him with fraud.

yeap, it's so simple (Physics 101) and cheap that the control system had to kill him.

Energy density (either energy per mass, energy per volume or even energy per price) and the physics behind it are what holds things back. The energy density of batteries sucks and is already not too far from theoretical limits. The energy density of hydrogen (per volume) sucks as well. As far as batteries go, most of the improvement is in making them cheaper and safer. Hydrogen doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint at the moment considering its mostly made by destroying a perfectly good fuel for vehicles - natural gas - along with myriad other reasons. I would argue that electric vehicles are still what we should work for, since electricity is still one of our most efficiently produced "fuels". When it becomes mainstream relies largely on when the price of batteries goes down sufficiently or when the price of fossil fuels goes up sufficiently

I agree that electric drivelines are the future, but the rub is if they will use high density batteries, ultra-capacitors, a mix of the two, or one of the prevoous buffering a fuel cell. The automakers are investing heavily on all of the above.

Even though GM isn't selling a lot of Volts its battery + range extender (can be an IC engine, turbine, fuel cell, whatever) driveline puts them in a great position to use a battery / ultra-capacitor buffered fuel cell. They have a ton of patented intellectual property from that program.

There was an American inventor who created a method to retrofit all cars so they could run on water.

The man was poisoned and all his work was discredited.

http://www.dispatch....A1_4V77MOK.html

http://en.wikipedia....water_fuel_cell

You have fallen for a conman free energy and cheap diesel/gasoline alternatives are among the most persistant and common scams out there.

They scam gullible conspiracy theorists into buying plans and parts,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6FxJh_Rr34

They scam investors out of millions.

This is nothing special its common.

http://www.water4gasstore.com/

Yes, I have read them. The wikipedia page is for general information.

And the rest comes from a dark dark place.

Why do you think that propane/LNG/CNG (all far older technologies than hydrogen - and all related) - a relative bargain given current natural-gas prices compared to gasoline, let alone diesel fuel - has gone exactly nowhere outside of - of all places - military fleet usage? (Joint Forces Base Andrews is one of the cleanest - in terms of emissions - military bases around, and it;s far from small. The home of Air Force One runs over HALF their fleet of vehicles on CNG - including three-fourths that would ordinarily be powered by diesel, such as military ambulances and fire trucks.)

In other countries LNG/CNG are used quite a lot actually, it's only in America where it isn't.

For example, all taxis in HK (of which there are quite a lot) are all LNG. A lot of taxis in India are LNG too. For a long time in the US nobody cared about other sources because gas was so ridiculously cheap but as it keeps increasing more people will stop using it and switching over to other means.

Now your other means could be battery powered, which goes <100 miles, takes an entire night to recharge and then costs you thousands to replace the batteries after couple of years. Or you can switch to things like hydrogen, or CNG. Battery technology just hasn't increased as fast as we'd like it to. Maybe in the next 10 years there will be some giant breakthrough, but the chances of that happening isn't very high.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!