DOE wants better batteries

[wabbit]

The US Dept of Energy is creating a new project to come up with batteries that have 5 times the current capacity and are cheaper. The project involves 5 universities and 5 national labs, with 4 private companies. They have allocated $120 million over 5 years for the project research.

This could have some very good prospects for future B designs and made me think of the E-Trek and Advanced projects. You can get more details from this article. http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ors_picks=true

[Mike]

Based on their recent track record, I wouldn't hold my breath.
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-fa ... companies/

[booster]

Originally Posted by Mike

Based on their recent track record, I wouldn't hold my breath.
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-fa ... companies/

I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but it looks like it is already there. That is a right wing, anti Obama site, that hates anything that he does, so it is hardly unbiased, and should be basically ignored IMO. I would say the same if it was the other way. If you look at history, you will find that many innovations have come from subsidized research, and would not have happened without that support. By definition, many, cutting edge, things can't be pursued based on economic return. The space program (US) has produced many innovations that could not have been developed in the private sector because they don't pay for themselves right away. This doesn't make them less innovative or important in the long term. Note that the problem stated was in government support to private industry, to develop a product to improve the general good. Is this better or worse than if it was government only? Do you, or anyone else trying new ideas, hit 100% success? I surely don't, and I try lots of different ideas in all areas of my life. If we pooh-pooh science and technology, and only rely on things that will pay for themselves in a very short time, IMO, we are doomed to be back in the stone age (metaphorically). Please understand that most disease cures were subsidized, as was the nuclear research that kept us from being Nazi. I think it is very easy to put long term research in the same realm as consumer products, with the need to have immediate profit, but it really is a different issue, and it will help your children more than you. True innovation isn't free, and usually isn't short term. Pure research can be a black hole if not properly controlled, but it can also give you things that the "for profit" world cannot. Do it right and it will be a huge benefit to the entire population. IMO, subsidize the important research, prove it works, and then turn it over to private industry to produce, tax the profits to fund the next innovation research. The public gets the benefit, the cost to the public is based on competition, and the cycle can begin over again on the next innovation.

Rant done.

Marcopolo-- if you chose to delete this, I totally understand.

[markopolo]

Involving six national labs, five universities and four private firms in this project might make the goal obtainable. Seems like a better approach than backing one company.

I don't think Mike was bringing party politics into this even though the link looks to be. I see as more a comment on the poor success rate of companies on the receiving end of these grants. There have been a number of failures in this part of world also. Funding the research and involving 15 groups does seem to be a smarter approach.

My batteries should be good for at least five years so maybe my next set will be "five times more powerful and five times cheaper"

You guys can edit or delete your own posts if you think they're off track.

Remember: "five times more powerful and five times cheaper within 5 years" - that would be fantastic.

[Mike]

The point I was trying to make was the idea that the DOE was getting involved in yet another "research" project. When I saw wabbit's post I had to chuckle because I honestly couldn't think of one major success story with DOE fingerprints on it in quite some time, but I had heard of a battery (no pun) of failures. So I googled batteries and green energy and DOE and got hits which included what I thought was a fairly comprehensive list of failed green energy related projects (including A123 Battery, which was supposed to be doing what wabbit had mentioned in his post I believe? once again?) over the last few years that I believe the DOE has funded. I didn't think I had to filter the rest of the article to make it politically neutral. At any rate, there certainly was no intent to offend. I added a link to an article with factual content (a list), which I thought supported my comment.
It was intended as a tongue in cheek post.

[booster]

Hardly unbiased, as it comes from DOE, but here is what they say about last round of battery, clean power, electric vehicles, etc. It appears that the norm is to give grants to many sources for the same projects, which as Marco says, is a good thing. If one of the folks that gets a grant goes belly up, they seem to get huge attention and put out as the typical result, I think. Could past, and future, failures be prevented by better management? Almost certainly. Could they all be prevented? Not likely. Will politician use whatever happens, good or bad, for political gain? Absolutely.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/R...n2012final.pdf

I think that what my first boss in the Engineering/manufacturing world (a wild haired, Latfian, WWII pow, engineer and toolmaker) always told us makes the most sense of all this. He said that if you aren't having failures, sometimes spectacular ones, on a regular basis, you are being too cautious, and not being innovative enough. On difficult issues, he would expect as much as 90% of attempts or theories to fail, but also understood that you needed to try all the stuff you weren't sure of, if you were going to find that gem of a solution. He was a multiple patent holder and very skilled machine designer. One of the smartest people I have every met.

Our batteries will probably die about the same time as Marcos, so we are hopeful, too!

[dicktill]

I would like to wholeheartily second both of Booster's postings. A lot of great wisdom there!

[AmCruiser]

Booster, your first engineering boss sounds like he was cut from the same cloth as mine (back in 81). Interestingly, he was a also a former WW2 POW but was from Ukraine. He used to tell me he would never get mad if I failed (though I recall a couple times when he did) but he would kick me in the a__ if I didn't try.

I think involving the universities is a great thing. We (the shipbuider where I work) have involved the U of Maine and Maine Maritime Academy (my alma mater) in several engineering projects with great success. It give the students great experience and generally do a great job at bargain prices. They are often not fettered by the same paradigms as more experienced engineers and are more apt to think outside the box.

[wabbit]

The DoE is just the front man for the project and is putting up some seed money for the universities and national labs. I would have preferred ARPA, but I'm glad someone got the ball rolling. The fact that there are universities, national labs, and private corporations involved is a good guarantee that the research won't result in only expensive products by a single company. That is good news.

Years ago, a project on which I was working involved a meeting at Los Alamos National Lab, and I can tell you that the national labs do some serious engineering work and research.

Anything that results from this can help future B developments and maybe some retrofitting. It can also help laptop/phone/tablet use in campgrounds and elsewhere.

[markopolo]

Lithium-air batteries might be the next step forward.

http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ ... ry500.html

How it works: During discharge (driving), oxygen from the air reacts with lithium ions, forming lithium peroxide on a carbon matrix. Upon recharge, the oxygen is given back to the atmosphere and the lithium goes back onto the anode.

[markopolo]

JCESR chooses to de-emphasize lithium-oxygen research

http://www.jcesr.org/scientific-update- ... -research/

Looks like they've moved on to other technologies:

prototyping two kinds of batteries — a rechargeable magnesium-ion battery and a flow battery.

http://www.jcesr.org/jcesr-first-year-accomplishments/

It took a little while after the project announcement for the "five times more powerful and five times cheaper within 5 years" to actually get started. That's disappointing by understandable. I want the "five times more powerful and five times cheaper within 5 years" battery like yesterday!

Still lots of time left on the clock.