Author Topic: Battery of the future? (Read 2589 times)

Caaveman82 · « **on:** July 01, 2009, 07:11:28 AM »

I found this while looming around the interwebs.

Normally a virus is a bad thing for both your health and your technologies health. Not anymore. MIT is using viruses to build both the positive and negative end of Lithium Ion batteries.

Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed a genetically altered virus to create batteries. This new method will create cheaper rechargeable batteries for cars and electronics, while being nicer on the environment.

Today’s lithium-ion batteries send ions between a negatively charged anode and a positively charged cathode. Three years ago, the MIT researchers found that they could build an anode using viruses. The anode was comprised of cobalt oxide and gold. These viruses after coating themselves in cobalt oxide and gold then went on to assemble themselves into a nanowire.

Now those same researchers headed by Angela Belcher, Germeshausen Professor of Materials Science, Engineering and Biological Engineering, can now create the cathode portion of a lithium-ion battery using viruses. Creating both the anode and cathode by viruses makes batteries easy to build.

The viruses used are common bacteriophages that don’t infect humans. For the cathode, the viruses “coat themselves with iron phosphate, then grab hold of carbon nanotubes to create a network of highly conductive material.”

The carbon nanotube networks are able to transfer electrons from the electrodes to the iron phosphate core generating energy very quickly. By creating the network of carbon nanotubes, batteries can be lighter with more conductivity.

The research team wants to build better batteries that have “higher voltage and capacitance”. To do this, cathode assembly will be tried using materials such as manganese phosphate and nickel phosphate.

This nanoscale battery technology will allow batteries to be lightweight and to “take the shape of their container” rather than creating containers for the batteries opening up new possibilities for car and electronics manufacturers.

MIT’s battery research has already been displayed to President Obama at the White House by University President Susan Hockfield. President Hockfield and President Obama both advocated for federal funding for new clean technologies like virus built batteries.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2009/04/03/mit-building-batteries-using-viruses/

Could you even imagine? More effective batteries at less cost? Awesome.

74cb750 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2009, 07:21:04 AM »

Very interesting.

razor02097 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2009, 07:37:20 AM »

Great... a battery that has a life of 2 weeks... When your battery "dies" you wouldn't be kidding...

A virus needs a host to reproduce and they don't last forever... Neat concept but I don't see it being practical. You have to worry about how long the viruses live and how they will reproduce, how they charge the new batteries, the cost of some of the materials like cobalt and gold and the temp at which the batteries can operate.

Don't get me wrong its cool that they are thinking of new and creative ways to solve energy problems but dumping federal money in this is stupid... we should be trying to invent a better solar panel or geothermal energy plant or the bacteria that converts plant matter waste to fuel grade alcohol or something like that.

flybox1 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2009, 07:42:08 AM »

somehow, PETA will get in on this one.

razor02097 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2009, 07:58:00 AM »

Quote from: flybox1 on July 01, 2009, 07:42:08 AM

somehow, PETA will get in on this one.

lol virus slavery

ZanVooden · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2009, 08:09:41 AM »

Quote from: razor02097 on July 01, 2009, 07:37:20 AM

Great... a battery that has a life of 2 weeks... When your battery "dies" you wouldn't be kidding...

A virus needs a host to reproduce and they don't last forever... Neat concept but I don't see it being practical. You have to worry about how long the viruses live and how they will reproduce, how they charge the new batteries, the cost of some of the materials like cobalt and gold and the temp at which the batteries can operate.

Don't get me wrong its cool that they are thinking of new and creative ways to solve energy problems but dumping federal money in this is stupid... we should be trying to invent a better solar panel or geothermal energy plant or the bacteria that converts plant matter waste to fuel grade alcohol or something like that.

They aren't saying the viruses are creating the reaction that generates charge in a battery, they are building the structure. So once the organism dies the structure remains.

Solar panels have come a long way, and there already is tons of federal funding for them. The problem with solar panels is production cost and capabilities. If MIT could somehow use these nanotube carrying viruses to assemble solar panels, that would be awesome.

With the current technology in solar energy, if we were to cover 1/8th of the square mileage of the state of Nevada, we could power the entire US (based on average usage, and average power output of solar cells).

razor02097 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 01, 2009, 08:26:56 AM »

Quote from: ZanVooden on July 01, 2009, 08:09:41 AM

Quote from: razor02097 on July 01, 2009, 07:37:20 AM
Great... a battery that has a life of 2 weeks... When your battery "dies" you wouldn't be kidding...

A virus needs a host to reproduce and they don't last forever... Neat concept but I don't see it being practical. You have to worry about how long the viruses live and how they will reproduce, how they charge the new batteries, the cost of some of the materials like cobalt and gold and the temp at which the batteries can operate.

Don't get me wrong its cool that they are thinking of new and creative ways to solve energy problems but dumping federal money in this is stupid... we should be trying to invent a better solar panel or geothermal energy plant or the bacteria that converts plant matter waste to fuel grade alcohol or something like that.

They aren't saying the viruses are creating the reaction that generates charge in a battery, they are building the structure. So once the organism dies the structure remains.

Solar panels have come a long way, and there already is tons of federal funding for them. The problem with solar panels is production cost and capabilities. If MIT could somehow use these nanotube carrying viruses to assemble solar panels, that would be awesome.

With the current technology in solar energy, if we were to cover 1/8th of the square mileage of the state of Nevada, we could power the entire US (based on average usage, and average power output of solar cells).

that makes more sense, I was under the impression that the viruses where the one to maintain the reaction of the battery.

Solar panels haven't changed much though is the problem... yes there have been improvements but the latest innovation was set back in the early 90's when they developed a duel junction cell... There are things they are working on like "film" based cells or multi junction cells but really its still using the same silicon tech only making it more efficient.

I did hear about some guy invented a paint that produced electricity but it was a brief thing I watched on a show... never heard more about it. The university of North Carolina was also working on that but again... nothing recent.

Living things whether virus or animal are going to be fickle. I know there is a future for bio mechanical products but for right now it would be nice to have something that they could put into production in the next 5-10 years. I am not convinced the virus battery is such a project.

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #7 on:** July 01, 2009, 08:45:08 AM »

Actually razor, in the last few years, solar tech has gotten much more efficient. It is now around 40% or so, back in the 90s, it was about 20%. I would call that a big increase. There is also solar stuff being developed that gets close to 80% http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/
Now couple this little film with a battery like this and things would be awesome!

Caaveman82 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:54:10 AM »

Quote from: razor02097 on July 01, 2009, 07:37:20 AM

Great... a battery that has a life of 2 weeks... When your battery "dies" you wouldn't be kidding...

Don't get me wrong its cool that they are thinking of new and creative ways to solve energy problems but dumping federal money in this is stupid... we should be trying to invent a better solar panel or geothermal energy plant or the bacteria that converts plant matter waste to fuel grade alcohol or something like that.

I think MIT has a little more foresight than that lol

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #9 on:** July 01, 2009, 12:34:36 PM »

I would think so!

razor02097 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 01, 2009, 02:21:36 PM »

OK first off the 80% solar cell is in experimental stage, its not industry standard and there is no way to use it yet. Nor is there any way to measure the actual output. Yeah tech is great but again 40% efficiency... wow

Anyway if they get a battery that would be build via virus... wonderful but again excuse my skepticism of believing an article.

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #11 on:** July 01, 2009, 02:27:29 PM »

Well what do you expect? I mean a 100% increase is big. Sure it might not be 100% but then NO method of generation is 100%, a steam turbine which is used in coal fired plants is only about 35% efficient so now that solar panel is looking better isnt it. Plus , that 80% sheet works, there just is not a way to transmit its power, which is being worked on. I mean come on, where do you want things to be? Just fyi, a wind turbine is about 35% efficient. Just one more point for the solar cell.

razor02097 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 01, 2009, 02:39:51 PM »

Quote from: vinmans brew on July 01, 2009, 02:27:29 PM

Well what do you expect? I mean a 100% increase is big. Sure it might not be 100% but then NO method of generation is 100%, a steam turbine which is used in coal fired plants is only about 35% efficient so now that solar panel is looking better isn't it. Plus , that 80% sheet works, there just is not a way to transmit its power, which is being worked on. I mean come on, where do you want things to be? Just fyi, a wind turbine is about 35% efficient. Just one more point for the solar cell.

nothing is 100% efficient period.

Of course the plastic solar panel works...the article said so...they said there is no way of hooking it up to a load so how can they say its 80% efficient? I'm sure there is a way they did something to come up with that number but its more then likely to disappear in the abyss of patants forever...like so many neat and cool things invented before it.

no modern tech is going to be very efficient when you talk about going from source to load. If the new solar plastic generates a potential 50mW in full sunlight per square foot with 80% efficiency then you have a regular solar panel that generates potential 100mW in full sunlight per sq ft is the more efficient one better? They produce the same output. A scooter is more fuel efficient then a sport bike but the scooter has hardly the power of a sport bike.

I really don't know why you are arguing about this.

razor02097 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 01, 2009, 02:52:30 PM »

I'm kinda done with this thread so you guys have fun

Sorry for causing trouble

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2009, 03:05:47 PM »

Not arguing but you seem to be working with old info. I am just trying to update you some. if you dont want to accept it, thats fine, you can always find your own info on the net. I was just trying to find what amount makes it a big improvement for you. I figure that a doubling of output would since it is greater than many other sources.
As pauly would say "chill bro"

bucky katt · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2009, 03:29:44 PM »

Quote from: flybox1 on July 01, 2009, 07:42:08 AM

somehow, PETA will get in on this one.

dont know whether you should be worried youre thinking like me or vice-versa. great minds think alike

tramp · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2009, 03:57:30 AM »

they need to work more on super conductors

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2009, 06:07:48 AM »

I think the thing is to get away from silicon now. It has had a good run but is reaching its limit.

Caaveman82 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2009, 07:35:14 AM »

Quote from: vinmans brew on July 02, 2009, 06:07:48 AM

I think the thing is to get away from silicon now. It has had a good run but is reaching its limit.

Agreed.

If you read more about this matter you will find that is their main goal.

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2009, 08:05:28 AM »

I have come across some of that but the main focus for the press anyways is batter batteries and such, not the actual medium used to transfer the power. It would be awesome for a wire to come out that has the capacity of 4 ga yet be 10 in size, for example. I know wiring harnesses are not that heavy but they are bulky. And drop in wire size would be great, even if it is just to clean things up.

Caaveman82 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 02, 2009, 10:06:46 AM »

Quote from: vinmans brew on July 02, 2009, 08:05:28 AM

I have come across some of that but the main focus for the press anyways is batter batteries and such, not the actual medium used to transfer the power. It would be awesome for a wire to come out that has the capacity of 4 ga yet be 10 in size, for example. I know wiring harnesses are not that heavy but they are bulky. And drop in wire size would be great, even if it is just to clean things up.

If only roadkill was a conductive material, that would be great.

Inigo Montoya · « **Reply #21 on:** July 02, 2009, 11:13:53 AM »

No no, BUGS. Bugs should be conductive! Got enough on the front of my car right now!

Pinhead · « **Reply #22 on:** July 02, 2009, 11:56:52 AM »

Quote

A scooter is more fuel efficient then a sport bike but the scooter has hardly the power of a sport bike.

This depends on how you define "efficient."

The goal of any technology is to perform work. In the case of an engine, the work entails moving you around from place to place.

Power is the time rate at which work is done or energy is transferred,

where P is power, W is work and t is time.
In mechanics, the work done on an object is related to the forces acting on it by

where F is force, and Δd is the displacement of the object.

When it really comes down to it, the powerful sport bike is more efficient than the piece of #$%* scooter; it does much more work at a much higher rate of speed per unit of energy input.

In more practical terms, take the sports bike and drive it around as if it were a scooter. In other words, stay below 50mph and accelerate as if you had 5 available horsepower. I'm willing to bet the sport bike would get better mileage than the #$%*ty scooter.

ZanVooden · « **Reply #23 on:** July 02, 2009, 02:25:47 PM »

Quote from: Pinhead on July 02, 2009, 11:56:52 AM

Quote
A scooter is more fuel efficient then a sport bike but the scooter has hardly the power of a sport bike.

This depends on how you define "efficient."

The goal of any technology is to perform work. In the case of an engine, the work entails moving you around from place to place.

Power is the time rate at which work is done or energy is transferred, where P is power, W is work and t is time.
In mechanics, the work done on an object is related to the forces acting on it by where F is force, and Δd is the displacement of the object.

When it really comes down to it, the powerful sport bike is more efficient than the piece of #$%* scooter; it does much more work at a much higher rate of speed per unit of energy input.

In more practical terms, take the sports bike and drive it around as if it were a scooter. In other words, stay below 50mph and accelerate as if you had 5 available horsepower. I'm willing to bet the sport bike would get better mileage than the #$%*ty scooter.

Oh yeah, go bring mechanics in to this. In that case you should be defining a reference. If your reference is your parking spot in the garage, then hardly any work is because (assuming you park in the same spot every time) your del d is 0 or near zero, making your work zero and your power zero.

I'm sure I could come up with any way of twisting this one way or another simply by varying the reference.
And of course you already know this, but I just had be that guy.

Caaveman82 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2009, 09:14:49 AM »

Quote from: ZanVooden on July 02, 2009, 02:25:47 PM

Quote from: Pinhead on July 02, 2009, 11:56:52 AM
Quote
A scooter is more fuel efficient then a sport bike but the scooter has hardly the power of a sport bike.

This depends on how you define "efficient."

The goal of any technology is to perform work. In the case of an engine, the work entails moving you around from place to place.

Power is the time rate at which work is done or energy is transferred, where P is power, W is work and t is time.
In mechanics, the work done on an object is related to the forces acting on it by where F is force, and Δd is the displacement of the object.

When it really comes down to it, the powerful sport bike is more efficient than the piece of #$%* scooter; it does much more work at a much higher rate of speed per unit of energy input.

In more practical terms, take the sports bike and drive it around as if it were a scooter. In other words, stay below 50mph and accelerate as if you had 5 available horsepower. I'm willing to bet the sport bike would get better mileage than the #$%*ty scooter.

Oh yeah, go bring mechanics in to this. In that case you should be defining a reference. If your reference is your parking spot in the garage, then hardly any work is because (assuming you park in the same spot every time) your del d is 0 or near zero, making your work zero and your power zero.

I'm sure I could come up with any way of twisting this one way or another simply by varying the reference.
And of course you already know this, but I just had be that guy.

I think you are forgetting the most important therom of all.

D = C/E

Where D is a devils advocate and C is taking everything out of context and E is everytime.

News:

Author Topic: Battery of the future? (Read 2589 times)