I've been watching stuff like this for years and years and nothing has yet 'changed the world'. I'll get excited when a product exists with this battery in it.
I will not only get excited, I will finally build my electric powered WIG hovercraft and not have to deal with a poison belching turbocharged boxer engine. If any craft could fly electric it's a WIG machine, once your on the bubble nothing is more efficient, not wheels, not tracks, not conventional wings, nothing.
Sam, you use more NASA spinoff tech than you can imagine. The current boondoggle not withstanding, NASA is one of the premier R&D sources. And has been since the beginning.
NACA + NASA has been doing flight and space research for 100 years. NACA research on boundary layers is still relevant today. It is easy and fashionable to dump on the US. Have at it. NASA contracts with Boeing and SpaceX for services. The US space effort is a public private partnership managed with contracts. Detractors insist that SpaceX should not be counted as a US accomplishment. Some go so far as to point out Elon Musk's South African birth. NASA Boeing and SpaceX along with many others are all part of the US space effort. The trouble is that NASA has become tied to a specific group of vendors/partners. An effort was made to make this less exclusive and that is where NASA started working with SpaceX. IIRC the first NASA money was paid to SpaceX for the 4th launch of the Falcon 1. SpaceX has a significant customer base outside NASA.
ALL of which could have been done outside of "the race to space." Why, also, would not this belong to the public, being that taxpayers footed the bill?
Like others have said: I too have seen announcements like this over the years without any true breakthrough really showing up. But.. I want to remain optimistic: I am crossing all my fingers and toes that this is true because it would be so important for the world. The world is really waiting for something like this. If true, you can bet that companies like Tesla, CATL, Panasonic, etc. will be all over this before I've finished typing this comment. ;)
There's been literally dozens of similar news with different research groups, every year for the past decade.. they all have one thing in common, none have ever exited the lab.. i hope one day it happens but i am not optimistic
Toyota has bet their company on it too. (This is one of the reasons they gave for not building EVs “yet.”) Elon said it is a gamble to wait for solid state in the near term because by the time solid state would leave the lab and be in EVs, he’d have multiple generations of LIon batteries in the market, and his prices could be cheaper than first gen solid state. (I believe some old Electric Viking videos went over this.)
Bring on the future! Higher density, safer batteries with less need for exotic minerals seems like a winning combination for greater adoption in all industries.
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 you are completely missing the point, the private space industry's next step is space mining, and there is allot more out there then on earth. this is 20 year plus tech, specially considering the speed NASA moves. it will happen eventually. this level of battery tech isn't needed for the auto sector. aerospace and space yet though. I could see aircraft replacing their turbines..... also, he said it's 2x less in weight and and more in power that has unlimited cycles meaning it'll outlast the car, and the next 20.... and you lied about selenium, its more abundant not less. much more. watch the video all the way through next time. it's also almost impossible to set fire to it... and operate in almost twice the heat without cooling and testing the cold part this year. the technology has been advancing for decades, the last decade there has been more development in batteries then anything else, and more research in batteries in the last 10 years then all before it combined. 10's of BILLIONS of dollars!!!
Fellow Victorian, appreciate the content. Must say though I’ve never left heard NASA pronounced they way you do 😂 reminds me of Benedict Cumberbatch and the penguins!
I can't wait to see the developments and winners in the battery/energy storage, EV, crypto and genomics sectors over the next 10 years. The suspense is killing me!
This reminds me of the questions in IQ tests "Which one of these things does not fit the set?" Let's see: battery development -- real resources expended for improvements in a real product, EV evolution -- real resources expended for improvements in a real product, genomic research -- real resources expended for improvements in a spectrum of products, crypto -- real resources expended in the pursuit of a fictional product. Hmmm, which one doesn't fit? Beats me.
@@SkyRiver1 I think you are talking about crypto? You might want to look into blockchain technology a bit more. Removing the need for centralized agencies and protecting ourselves from the CBDCs that all the governments will soon be issuing seems pretty important to me.
From the article: “Not only does this design eliminate 30 to 40 percent of the battery’s weight, it also allows us to double or even triple the energy it can store..." The battery specs are 500Wh/kg, whereas, say, Tesla's 4680s are around 285Wh/kg. So that's 40% more energy for a battery that's the same weight as a 4680 pack, *OR* the same amount of energy for 40% less weight. Not both. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
I agree. We need clarity on this simple point and should apply one variable at a time in describing its density. I assume NASA hasn't increased the storage by double for a battery that weighs, at the same time, 40% less. If that's true, and comparing it to the state of the are 4680s (285Wh/kg) , NASA's technology would have to achieve 570 Wh/0.6kg which is 960 Wh/kg.
I was just having a electric vehical conversation and mentioned battery technology will improve over the next several years. was 2 days later and this video shows up. Sent the link to my friend "SEE!! Told ya."
All fingers crossed it comes to fruition in thru not too distant future. I thoroughly enjoyed your report it was clearly very well researched and very well explained. Thank you, Hussein
The whole point of government-funded research is that they can go down unknown tracks and won't go out of business if they hit a dead end. It's not always a dead end though!
500 wH/kg is close to the requirements for regional aviation, but another factor of 2 or 3 energy density gain would be needed for long-range air travel. (See "Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Electrify Commercial Aircraft" in ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 2, 663-668.)
@@MattOGormanSmith Just ran across a Two Bit da Vinci RU-vid video on CNT flywheels. 2700 Wh/kg!! That's more than twice what long-range, trans-continental aircraft would require.
Sam: Love your show, but please don't make the mistake of accociating cobalt and nickel as 'rare earth materials`. Rare earth materials are a specific group of metals located ar the bottom of the periodic table. Cobalt and nickel are very expensive, thats the only discouragement for using them.
Very interested. Where I live the battery capacity drops by 40% to 60% in the winter. A 250 mile range drops to less than 100 miles. And I haven't even driven in the coldest temperatures.
@@JohnR31415 Or leave your car plugged in in winter - like everyone with a gasoline powered car (frozen oil and coolant reduces gasoline powered cars range to zero in Canada). Sump heaters have been a thing since cars were a thing in Canada - they are a heater pad that is either glued or bolted to the sump or screwed into the sump drain plug.
The battery can't be double the energy density AND 40% lighter. Since energy density is based on weight. It's just got higher energy density. If those claims were true, it would have 300+ % more energy density
Selenium - an element that occurs is a lot of minerals ores as an alternative to sulphur. Copper Selenide was used as a semiconductor in the 1930’s before germanium and silicon became popular. It is also used for “bluing steel”. Selenium makes you stink like garlic is VERY low concentrations however and hydrogen Selenide is as toxic as hell. Selenium compounds eat holes in stainless steel…
@@l0I0I0I0 It’s absorbed rapidly through the skin. If you work round a plant that has selenides, your entire family knows it because you will be sweating it out for days after you leave. Gloves are a very good idea.
@@silverc4s146That's a ridiculous thing to say. You know something which is pretty toxic to "have around"? Iron. Also, copper, and basically all the metals in the periodic table, as they all can induce acute toxicity in living organisms quite easily. Yet we have iron and copper around us all over the place, and you know why? Because as long as we don't grind the stuff into a fine powder and ingest it it's completely harmless to us. Batteries containing selenium and sulfur would have zero toxicity issues with regards to humans, because you know, it's all sealed away inside the battery. So, safe. No worries. Stop the hysterical misinformation please.
Sam - let us know when this battery is in production and can be ordered - otherwise it is a mirage or phantomware and of no real value. As a chemist, I synthesized some amazing polymers with incredible properties but they never made it out of the lab.
Cutting edge technology could work brilliantly in concept..Or, even for NASA programs......However, it all comes down to "Cost"...Which may takes years of development & economies of scale to bring it to the market for mass consumption.
Sam, after seeing the many comments on 'believe when I see it', perhaps you could give some follow up on the likely hood of any of the myriad of new technologies that might actually make it to market. We all know that in the global maneuvering ,to be the 'BIG' player, companies will squash and keep technologies from coming to market. Your thoughts on a true switch to 'other' energy systems, replacing 'BIG' oil would be of great interest !
Solid state batteries are undoubtedly the future (all current EV battery tech will be rendered obsolete almost immediately), but, it's been the holy grail for years now, and we're still probably 5+ years from seeing something that's cheap enough, meets all safety requirements, less demand for raw materials and can be mass-produced at scale. There are so many videos claiming battery breakthroughs that I've lost count, so don't hold your breath for this one!
Taking off is the main reason the battery has to be able to discharge at such high rates. I wonder if a ground assist would be useful. Something like they have on an air craft carrier. The climb rate could be adjusted to the power capacity of the battery and cruising would use even less power. The main consideration would then be the energy capacity of the battery, and less, how fast it could discharge its energy. Also range would be increased by not using so much energy to take off.
If they succeed now and patent it now. It will take at least 20 years for this patent to expire before it could be mass produced. This was what happened to Lithium iron phosphate battery. The key is to mass produced and lower cost per kw.
Back in the mid-sixties, they released the technology that was going to make "fuel cells replace batteries" and provide the motive power for electric cars. We used said fuel cells, still do, in space and other tight places, but lead/acid, carbon/zinc alkaline, and now lithium remain the mainstay of our portable electric power. I was working with solid state electronics in the mid-sixties as a boy, worked it two decades as a Marine, and we now are coming back to those long ago hopes. I'm hoping my forty year old Mercedes diesel will last the rest of my life.
They keep saying double energy density AND 40% lighter, mixing weight and density units which is confusing. Are they the same thing, given the 10% for non battery structural weight, or truly cumulative? If the energy density is double you would obviously need half the weight for the same capacity if the weight was 100% battery. Like you're trying to count the benefit twice. If you mean double the density, otherwise stated as half the weight, just say one and we can infer the other through simple maths without the confusion. If it really is twice as dense AND 40% lighter, i.e. it can fit twice as much energy into 60% of the weight then it would be 3.33 times as energy dense in which case why not just say 333% (not 5x) higher energy density which sounds even more impressive than the double and 40% figures separately?
Sam, you have to remember that NASA is not a private company, so it doesn't have to be efficient. Is more important for the US Congress that NASA projects generates jobs in key states ( like Florida and Texas ). Also as a fan of SAPCEX, who has been following that company even before I knew Tesla existed, without NASA help, SPACEX wouldn't exist today.
True but possible if it doesn't require very much Selenium, but is usually found with sulfer so idk. 90 parts per billion of the crust of Earth which is rare. Would like to see the particulars. May be a good alternative or special use.
@@l0I0I0I0 It's rare. However, Gold is much rarer, yet it is used throughout industry and for nonessentials, including teeth, jewellery and coins. But it hasn't run out after thousands of years of use.
Lots of people are working on solid-state batteries, how does this compare to others? Also, this is still in the lab phase, there is no mention on what it will take to manufacture them? Will it require a complete retool? Lab work is great, but it could still be a decade before we see anything in commercial production.
I won't hold my breath waiting for this battery to go into productions, but when it is available then it will also mean that a proper 4wd Ute will be viable. Yesss
This may be nitpicking, but aircraft can't use gasoline, they use one of a few different fuels that are not as vulnerable to air pressure differences. You didn't mention two of the enormous advantages of electric aircraft. When a plane is at altitude... 30,000 feet, say... and is preparing to land, they can use regen on their way back down, similar to an EV car as it rolls down a mountainside. By reversing the prop blades to act as wind turbines rather than providing propulsive power, the plane can put some of the energy back into the battery that it used to get airborne. Also, since fueled aircraft need oxygen in the air to operate, they eventually reach an altitude above which the plane cannot fly. Elon Musk did the calculations that show that an electric aircraft can "porpoise" out of the atmosphere into the lower levels of space, "coasting" without drag for significant distances until gravity pulls it back down into the air. An electric aircraft could significantly extend its range this way. Musk appears in the movie, Iron Man II, in which he has a cameo in a party scene with Gwynneth Paltrow and Robert Downey Jr. He tells Tony Stark that he has invented a new electric jet. "You have? We can make it work", says Stark.
Lesson I learned from Elon Musk: making a prototype is easy... getting that prototype into productions is VERY HARD! Solid state has been around for a while now and this report has highlighted all the advantages of this new tech BUT how expensive is it and how hard is it to manufacture? No matter how great it works in the lab, if NASA can't mass produce these batteries, they're NOT going to change anything!
You are right. A new product like this comes from laboratory engineers to get it into production you need production engineers. Which are made up of planning and methods engineers A completely different types of engineers to make it cost-effective.
While transoceanic range MAY be possible with such a battery-powered aircraft that distance would be covered at a MUCH lower rate of speed. One of the things that makes intercontinental air travel PRACTICAL is the rate of speed at which present day aircraft can travel thanks to the gas-turbine engine. A battery powered aircraft would be limited to some sort of propeller driven configuration or a ducted fan configuration. Neither of these technologies can achieve the 600+ MPH speed of a gas turbine powered aircraft.
Good vid, but I doubt the new battery technology is a game changer until the following issues are addressed: cost of production, recharge time for large airplanes, ability to safely dump batteries prior to dangerous landings, battery mass distribution in aircraft and future shortages of Lithium. The world does not have enough commercially minable lithium to meet the needs of ICE vehicle replacement, let alone aircraft, cell phones, computers etc.
NASA uses the acronym SABERS (solid state architecture batteries for enhanced rechargeability and safety); NASA applies 'holey graphene' material and sulphur-selenium material. I assume that the performance of this battery is comparable with GMG's state-of-the-art Aluminum graphene battery (thumbs up Australia!), that does not even depend on Lithium. Australia has big reserves of Bauxite. Industry is going to upscale the production of graphene materials, no doubt about that. I hope the best 'graphene material' inventions/discoveries will be licensed to the battery industry. Very interesting calculation about the 'minimal' energy/weight (KWh/Kg) and power/weight (Watt/Kg) battery requirements for economic air travel by means of electric airplanes.
OK if you double the "energy it can store" AND halve the weight is this is the same thing measured twice or said two different ways? So are you saying the gravimetric energy density is increased by 2 or 4? The former would be wonderful. The latter would be a game changer and allow electric powered flight.
Like others: Paint me as skeptical. I looked at a couple of articles about the NASA announcement and what is not discussed is just as telling as what is discussed. - No mention of cycle life. If the battery can only be cycled a few hundred times it will have a very limited set of applications. - Production processes. If the production process is not scalable, it is not a breakthrough in anything but a scientific novelty. In addition, if the production process is radically different than existing battery production, it will be difficult to get the volume ramped up enough to be significant. A lot of companies and researchers have announced their breakthroughs in Solid State batteries, but issues like these are the hurdles that have kept them from being 'real'
Thanks for your videos, Sam. They are uplifting and inspiring. Don't let the Doubters, Dolts and Grammar Nazis get you down. You go ahead and pronounce stuff the way you want to, and let the haters be damned.. The English language is the absolute LEAST precise language ever created, and anyone that believes THEIR way is the perfect way is just exercising their own insecurities. Effem.. I know that Ebikes aren't exactly your bailiwick, but have you ever thought to dedicate a video to the prospects of lighter weight machines with longer ranges than what seems to be a stagnant field lately? I have wanted one for a few years now but they have been far too costly and way too heavy. This video had me imagining the application of this new level of power storage to what an Ebike should be.
No more fossil fuel jets? That would be a stretch. If 66 kWh equals 12 gallons of gasoline, then you'd need 625,000 lbs of these cells in a 787 equivelent. That is still twice what the fuel weighs now. A lot closer to equivelent but not really plausible yet. You'd have 1/2 the range or a cargo reduced by 312,000 lbs
Yes, the energy density and safety is impressive, but what are the economics of making them at scale? If this is just new chemistry that can mostly be inserted into existing production facilities and the materials are cheap enough, then it's a game changer. However, these are big ifs. NASA doesn't normally trouble itself with how much things cost or how hard they are to make. Specification is key for them, not the economics of the product.
It's not just electric aviation that is made possible. This kind of battery would make electric vehicles comparable to ICE vehicles in price and range. There are serious advantages to owning an ev, but currently the battery technology is not such that most people would find it practical. Practical electric transportation would allow for all kinds of improvements.
To start with there are few "gasoline powered" aircraft, most run on Jet Fuel (9.6kWh/L) so a litre of Jet Fuel weighs 0.79kg v (Li-ion max = 260 Wh/Kg), even doubling the efficiency of the battery you aren't even in the same ballpark and the a/c has to carry the drained cells until landing, burned jet fuel is gone. Without even comparing refuel v recharge times, you aren't going to be seeing mass adoption of electric aircraft any time soon.
If cheap per kWh and easy to mass produce it would clearly be a major improvement assuming no one has something even better. Twice the energy density and half the weight would be nearly 4x improvment lower weight EVs making them green, safer also. But - it appears it would be lithium based a serious draw back but even with current supplies you could get the same range with 1/4th as much or maybe 20 million BEVs annually. If cost wasn't 4x then it could help bring costs down.
Current Li-ion batteries are around 250 Watt hours per kg. (The 4680s Tesla is producing have an energy density of ~285Wh/kg). NASA is claiming 500Wh/kg. That means NASA's batteries are about double the energy *or* half the weight, not both. As in you could have a battery pack of the same size and weight and have twice the capacity, or have a battery pack half the size and weight and get the same capacity. It's *not* "twice the capacity *and* half the size". This is misrepresented in the article Sam is referencing, and he's repeating that misrepresentation.
@@truhartwood3170 That would obviously only be double but Viking said twice the energy and half the weight so maybe he meant just twice overall? If so then commercial jets are not plausible at all.
@@BlondieSuperdog I reeber Elon said that 500Wh/kg was the threshold for it to start making sense in planes, but I don't think he meant long haul flights, probably just shorter flights and drone taxis and stuff.
@@BlondieSuperdog I reeber Elon said that 500Wh/kg was the threshold for it to start making sense in planes, but I don't think he meant long haul flights, probably just shorter flights and drone taxis and stuff.
@@truhartwood3170 yes small craft I suppose current range of the Pipistrel electric currently has about 100 miles range so maybe 200 miles; not very comparible to gasoline though.
400 Watt/kg ist not an energy but a power density. So what did Elon really say? Why is this SSB so much better than Quantumscape/Toyota solutions? Have you ever seen this battery in mass production or is it just a NASA-promise?
Another possible game changer is a solid state ultra capacitor, patented by Alvin Marks, called QUENSOR. Quantum Energy Storage or Retrieval. Claims an energy density similar to gasoline. The main problem with producing QUENSOR is the use of perflouric acid.
@@alexmanojlovic768 The perflouric acid treats a stretch oriented conductive polymer to produce strings of connected capacitors consisting of 3 or 4 carbon atoms and a Florine atom, each capable of holding or releasing 4 electrons. No ions moving around like in batteries, just electrons moving around.
@@paulvansteenberghe4644 that went straight over my head, Paul, I gave up on Chemistry in high school! But thanks for taking the time, even after my smart455 joke!! 👍 (It's perflUoric & FlUorine, not perflOuric & Florine...)
No mention of all the Universities and Toyota that are involved, also old news "By YURI KAGEYAMA AP Business Writer April 8, 2022, 8:59 PM TOKYO -- Nissan is working with NASA on a new type of battery for electric vehicles that promises to charge quicker and be lighter yet safe, the Japanese automaker said Friday."
Thanks Viking for this NASA battery update, the pace of battery innovation and development is breathtaking, as is the pace of bio-science, many of us are alive due to the rapid development of vaccines that are ongoing. As you often observe it is a great time to be alive, just wait for the breakthroughs coming in Quantum Physics. Our scientific knowledge is about to enter a truely revolutionary period unlike any that came before! I am so excited, sadly I am 72 not 22. But my grandchildren will see this gleaming future!
I’m hopeful but skeptical. Definitely a big plus for land vehicles, but still too short for long haul flights for now. Also, planes don’t burn gasoline.
As exciting as this sounds the energy density of a lithium ion battery versus typical gasoline is roughly 100 times less. So still a very long way to go for any practical uses in something like an aircraft.
Even if they came out with a solid state that a plane could use to make an international flight, airlines will be hard pressed to change over until you can quick charge a flight. I work at an airport as a fueler and we get regional flights sometimes that are quick turns where they land and leave within 30mins so they're only at the gate for 15-20mins to which we have equipment that can pump 150gpm for small planes all the way up to 1000gpm for the big planes. Our international flights take roughly 15000gals of jet a, and it takes roughly 20mins to set up pump and break down. If they could have a battery that could be that massive and charge in 15 mins then it'll be used. It's a little known fact but on a given day like 60% of the worlds aircraft are actually in the air while the other portion is on the ground at a gate.
Those 15000 gallons are equivalent to about 500,000 kwh. (5,000 car batteries!) So to charge this energy in 15 mins, the charger would have to be rated at over 2 Gigawatts ...! Definitely not happening . The energy demands of international flights are mind boggling. Very long 747 flights are twice these figures....Batteries would seem an impossibility, period. Hydrogen is a future 'maybe'.
I don’t think you can equate industrial manufacturing and research. The same pressure that gets products into production can cause research to be rushed
Any battery with a pure Lithium anode will have safety issues, due to the fact that pure Lithium reacts violently with oxygen in the air or even the oxygen bound up in water (H2O), since the seals that separate this pure Lithium anode from the air can and too often do leak!!!! Additionally, usually, to enable sufficient ion mobility, the so-called "solid" state batteries always seem to require some flammable liquid electrolyte, even when they use a solid ceramic separator to prevent internal shorting by the growth of dendrites.
Any gotchas with charging/discharging rate, temperature range, COST, manufacturability, that sort of thing? Or is this going into a few spacecraft and that's it?
In addition, an electric powered 'tender/launch' air craft could be used to transport rockets which are going to be sent into space up to, say, 100,000ft, flying along the equator in the direction of the spin of the earth. How much less fuel would be used, when firing off your rocket at that altitude, to reach orbit.
NASA is really good at basic "boring" research. The problem comes when something is high enough profile for the Congress to take notice and start grubbing around for "their district/state's share".
Looks like it is a graphene battery. They are not the only ones working on this, but as much hype as graphene has had it is about time we see something tangible with the material.
How would NASA manage this incredible IP and how would this get rolled out to industry? Perhaps NASA would license American companies to utilize this IP?
We'd both be rich just off of all the "GAME CHANGING REVOLUTIONARY" crap that has been announced this year alone, with exactly 0 new things on the market.
Forgive me if this has already been asked, but do we know if the charging speeds on these solid state batteries are as fast as traditional chemical batteries?
Most of the companies doing R&D in this space claim solid state batteries can recharge at much higher speeds because they aren’t prone to degradation like our current battery tech is. A lot of people and companies around the world are working on this. I’m confident that it’s just when, not if it will happen. When it does and becomes mass produced by CATL and others, it will truly transform the world.
Yup, people doing R&D claim this and claim that (after all, they need to attract funding!), I don't want to be a wet blanket, but there have been a LOT of optimistic announcements that never materialised outside the lab. @@adventuresinparadise1522
