A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 30th 18, 02:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:38:53 -0700, Bill.Daniels wrote:

But, an electric motor is more than three times as efficient as an
internal combustion engine - 98% vs. 33% - so they don't need as much
'fuel'.

Well, getting on that way - but certainly no better if you include the
generation and charging efficiencies.

Actually, all I was looking to do was to put numbers to the overall
efficiency of electric storage in terms of weight or volume compared with
hydrocarbon fuels. Batteries are much worse here than petrol.

And there's another demerit too: run the tank dry on a turbo or jet and
the empty tank is nice and light for the rest of the flight home, while a
battery that has been run flat is no lighter than when it was fully
charged.

A quick scan for zinc-air battery characteristics suggests they are only
suitable for low power applications, tend to have a high self-discharge
rate and don't like high temperatures or humidity. Nobody, that I found
anyway, is quoting energy density (kWh/kg) or volumetric efficiency (kWh/
litre).

Bottom line: I like the idea of electric powered vehicles. But in this
application the volume and weight of energy storage systems is all-
important, but electrochemistry is against any large improvement, at
least for rechargeable batteries using currently proven chemistry. So far
nobody has gotten better results from fuel-cells either, or we'd be
seeing them in cars.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
  #12  
Old September 30th 18, 07:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:38:53 -0700, Bill.Daniels wrote:

But, an electric motor is more than three times as efficient as an
internal combustion engine - 98% vs. 33% - so they don't need as much
'fuel'.

Well, getting on that way - but certainly no better if you include the
generation and charging efficiencies.

Actually, all I was looking to do was to put numbers to the overall
efficiency of electric storage in terms of weight or volume compared with
hydrocarbon fuels. Batteries are much worse here than petrol.

And there's another demerit too: run the tank dry on a turbo or jet and
the empty tank is nice and light for the rest of the flight home, while a
battery that has been run flat is no lighter than when it was fully
charged.

A quick scan for zinc-air battery characteristics suggests they are only
suitable for low power applications, tend to have a high self-discharge
rate and don't like high temperatures or humidity. Nobody, that I found
anyway, is quoting energy density (kWh/kg) or volumetric efficiency (kWh/
litre).

Bottom line: I like the idea of electric powered vehicles. But in this
application the volume and weight of energy storage systems is all-
important, but electrochemistry is against any large improvement, at
least for rechargeable batteries using currently proven chemistry. So far
nobody has gotten better results from fuel-cells either, or we'd be
seeing them in cars.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Here is an interesting 2015 presentation on zinc-air batteries that indicates the possibility for very high energy densities (1200+ WHr/kg):
https://www.csm.ornl.gov/BLI8/presen...UNIST-BYI8.pdf

Tom
  #13  
Old September 30th 18, 11:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Chris Wedgwood[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 5:58:43 PM UTC+2, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:48:13 -0700, Soartech wrote:

Ultra capacitors !

A gallon of gasoline contains 120 million Joules of energy.

A more useful equivalent for comparison is that a litre of petrol is as
near as dammit 10 kWh in energy terms - and petrol spiked with methanol
will be a bit less: 9-9.5 kWh at a guess,

So a US gallon (3.78l) would be the equivalent of 37.8 kWh of
unadulterated petrol or 34-36 kWh if its a gasoline/methanol blend.

By comparison, the Gen 2 FES battery has 14 cells, each of 2.1 kWh, or
29.4 kWh for the standard 14 cell pack, so an hPh Shark (dual packs
carried has just less than 60kWh of energy onboard, or 1.6 US gallons of
avgas equivalent.

The dual packs are about 18 litres total volume, so on a volumetric basis
they're about 1/3 as good as petrol when it comes to storing energy in
limited space.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org


He did the Math..
  #14  
Old September 30th 18, 12:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 23:07:27 -0700, 2G wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:38:53 -0700, Bill.Daniels wrote:

But, an electric motor is more than three times as efficient as an
internal combustion engine - 98% vs. 33% - so they don't need as much
'fuel'.

Well, getting on that way - but certainly no better if you include the
generation and charging efficiencies.

Actually, all I was looking to do was to put numbers to the overall
efficiency of electric storage in terms of weight or volume compared
with hydrocarbon fuels. Batteries are much worse here than petrol.

And there's another demerit too: run the tank dry on a turbo or jet and
the empty tank is nice and light for the rest of the flight home, while
a battery that has been run flat is no lighter than when it was fully
charged.

A quick scan for zinc-air battery characteristics suggests they are
only suitable for low power applications, tend to have a high
self-discharge rate and don't like high temperatures or humidity.
Nobody, that I found anyway, is quoting energy density (kWh/kg) or
volumetric efficiency (kWh/
litre).

Bottom line: I like the idea of electric powered vehicles. But in this
application the volume and weight of energy storage systems is all-
important, but electrochemistry is against any large improvement, at
least for rechargeable batteries using currently proven chemistry. So
far nobody has gotten better results from fuel-cells either, or we'd be
seeing them in cars.


--
Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Here is an interesting 2015 presentation on zinc-air batteries that
indicates the possibility for very high energy densities (1200+ WHr/kg):
https://www.csm.ornl.gov/BLI8/presen...UNIST-BYI8.pdf

Interesting stuff but, unless I totally misunderstood the presentation:

- the theoretical energy density of ZAB is around 170% of what LiFePO4
can do (0.3 kWh/kg vs 0.18 kWh/kg). no comparison with Li-ion made.
(page 4).

- page 18 quotes a measured 1 kWh/kg.

- page 32 quotes 0.0357 kWh/kg (0.41 kWh/litre) for an experimental ZAB
rig.

- page 36 quotes 1.9 kWh/kg (0.0036 kWh/litre) for a flexible cable
format battery.

.... all quite a way short of the 10 kWh/litre (12.5 kWh/kg) of
hydrocarbon energy storage.

The sort of high power performance needed for a car or aircraft motor
wasn't really discussed or apparent in the accompanying numbers, charts
and graphs.

Still, looks to be worth watching and the possibility of almost instant
recharge by replacing the zinc becomes interesting if a cell with high
power output can be designed for easy 'slip out/slip in' zinc replacement
without needing special equipment, e.g to deal with the (highly alkaline)
potassium hydroxide electrolyte.

The possibility of recycling the 'used' zinc externally sounds good too.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
  #15  
Old October 1st 18, 06:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:23:22 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 23:07:27 -0700, 2G wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:38:53 -0700, Bill.Daniels wrote:

But, an electric motor is more than three times as efficient as an
internal combustion engine - 98% vs. 33% - so they don't need as much
'fuel'.

Well, getting on that way - but certainly no better if you include the
generation and charging efficiencies.

Actually, all I was looking to do was to put numbers to the overall
efficiency of electric storage in terms of weight or volume compared
with hydrocarbon fuels. Batteries are much worse here than petrol.

And there's another demerit too: run the tank dry on a turbo or jet and
the empty tank is nice and light for the rest of the flight home, while
a battery that has been run flat is no lighter than when it was fully
charged.

A quick scan for zinc-air battery characteristics suggests they are
only suitable for low power applications, tend to have a high
self-discharge rate and don't like high temperatures or humidity.
Nobody, that I found anyway, is quoting energy density (kWh/kg) or
volumetric efficiency (kWh/
litre).

Bottom line: I like the idea of electric powered vehicles. But in this
application the volume and weight of energy storage systems is all-
important, but electrochemistry is against any large improvement, at
least for rechargeable batteries using currently proven chemistry. So
far nobody has gotten better results from fuel-cells either, or we'd be
seeing them in cars.


--
Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Here is an interesting 2015 presentation on zinc-air batteries that
indicates the possibility for very high energy densities (1200+ WHr/kg):
https://www.csm.ornl.gov/BLI8/presen...UNIST-BYI8.pdf

Interesting stuff but, unless I totally misunderstood the presentation:

- the theoretical energy density of ZAB is around 170% of what LiFePO4
can do (0.3 kWh/kg vs 0.18 kWh/kg). no comparison with Li-ion made.
(page 4).

- page 18 quotes a measured 1 kWh/kg.

- page 32 quotes 0.0357 kWh/kg (0.41 kWh/litre) for an experimental ZAB
rig.

- page 36 quotes 1.9 kWh/kg (0.0036 kWh/litre) for a flexible cable
format battery.

... all quite a way short of the 10 kWh/litre (12.5 kWh/kg) of
hydrocarbon energy storage.

The sort of high power performance needed for a car or aircraft motor
wasn't really discussed or apparent in the accompanying numbers, charts
and graphs.

Still, looks to be worth watching and the possibility of almost instant
recharge by replacing the zinc becomes interesting if a cell with high
power output can be designed for easy 'slip out/slip in' zinc replacement
without needing special equipment, e.g to deal with the (highly alkaline)
potassium hydroxide electrolyte.

The possibility of recycling the 'used' zinc externally sounds good too.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Here is an excellent paper that discusses the current state-of-the-art in zinc-air batteries:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...rspectives.pdf
I haven't had time yet to read the full paper, but what I have read so far is most instructive.

Tom
  #16  
Old October 1st 18, 11:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:37:42 -0700, 2G wrote:

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:23:22 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 23:07:27 -0700, 2G wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:38:53 -0700, Bill.Daniels wrote:

But, an electric motor is more than three times as efficient as an
internal combustion engine - 98% vs. 33% - so they don't need as
much 'fuel'.

Well, getting on that way - but certainly no better if you include
the generation and charging efficiencies.

Actually, all I was looking to do was to put numbers to the overall
efficiency of electric storage in terms of weight or volume compared
with hydrocarbon fuels. Batteries are much worse here than petrol.

And there's another demerit too: run the tank dry on a turbo or jet
and the empty tank is nice and light for the rest of the flight
home, while a battery that has been run flat is no lighter than when
it was fully charged.

A quick scan for zinc-air battery characteristics suggests they are
only suitable for low power applications, tend to have a high
self-discharge rate and don't like high temperatures or humidity.
Nobody, that I found anyway, is quoting energy density (kWh/kg) or
volumetric efficiency (kWh/
litre).

Bottom line: I like the idea of electric powered vehicles. But in
this application the volume and weight of energy storage systems is
all- important, but electrochemistry is against any large
improvement, at least for rechargeable batteries using currently
proven chemistry. So far nobody has gotten better results from
fuel-cells either, or we'd be seeing them in cars.


--
Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Here is an interesting 2015 presentation on zinc-air batteries that
indicates the possibility for very high energy densities (1200+
WHr/kg):
https://www.csm.ornl.gov/BLI8/presen...UNIST-BYI8.pdf

Interesting stuff but, unless I totally misunderstood the presentation:

- the theoretical energy density of ZAB is around 170% of what LiFePO4
can do (0.3 kWh/kg vs 0.18 kWh/kg). no comparison with Li-ion made.
(page 4).

- page 18 quotes a measured 1 kWh/kg.

- page 32 quotes 0.0357 kWh/kg (0.41 kWh/litre) for an experimental
ZAB
rig.

- page 36 quotes 1.9 kWh/kg (0.0036 kWh/litre) for a flexible cable
format battery.

... all quite a way short of the 10 kWh/litre (12.5 kWh/kg) of
hydrocarbon energy storage.

The sort of high power performance needed for a car or aircraft motor
wasn't really discussed or apparent in the accompanying numbers, charts
and graphs.

Still, looks to be worth watching and the possibility of almost instant
recharge by replacing the zinc becomes interesting if a cell with high
power output can be designed for easy 'slip out/slip in' zinc
replacement without needing special equipment, e.g to deal with the
(highly alkaline)
potassium hydroxide electrolyte.

The possibility of recycling the 'used' zinc externally sounds good
too.


--
Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Here is an excellent paper that discusses the current state-of-the-art
in zinc-air batteries:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...6/publication/

311098275_Electrically_Rechargeable_Zinc-
Air_Batteries_Progress_Challenges_and_Perspectives/links/
59da6e38458515a5bc2b43b1/Electrically-Rechargeable-Zinc-Air-Batteries-
Progress-Challenges-and-Perspectives.pdf
I haven't had time yet to read the full paper, but what I have read so
far is most instructive.

Tom


Thanks for that. Saved for reading later.



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
  #17  
Old October 1st 18, 12:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

perjantai 28. syyskuuta 2018 18.58.43 UTC+3 Martin Gregorie kirjoitti:

By comparison, the Gen 2 FES battery has 14 cells, each of 2.1 kWh, or
29.4 kWh for the standard 14 cell pack, so an hPh Shark (dual packs
carried has just less than 60kWh of energy onboard, or 1.6 US gallons of
avgas equivalent.


I think FES battery has 14 cells at 41 Ah per cell. With 58 Volts you get the 2,1 kWh number (per battery back, and with some internal power loss). Two batteries and you end up 4,2 kWh of energy which gives you advertized hour flight duration with minimal power (4-5kW).



  #18  
Old November 16th 18, 06:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

One of the funny things with true metal air batteries is that they gain weight as they discharge (Zn = ZnO2), and surprisingly (cough) no promoter of the tech quotes Wh/kg for discharged batteries, which is what you'll be carrying around... they partially look so attractive because of that little cheat!
  #19  
Old November 16th 18, 03:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

Wow!Â* Looking at the atomic mass of each, that would be about a 50%
increase (~65 for Zn and 16 or O) if all of the zinc was oxidized! Now
I'm no chemist, that that looks HUGE to me!

On 11/15/2018 10:19 PM, wrote:
One of the funny things with true metal air batteries is that they gain weight as they discharge (Zn = ZnO2), and surprisingly (cough) no promoter of the tech quotes Wh/kg for discharged batteries, which is what you'll be carrying around... they partially look so attractive because of that little cheat!


--
Dan, 5J
  #20  
Old November 16th 18, 03:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default Rechargeable Zinc-Air battery moves closer to commercialization

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:36:18 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

Wow!Â* Looking at the atomic mass of each, that would be about a 50%
increase (~65 for Zn and 16 or O) if all of the zinc was oxidized! Now
I'm no chemist, that that looks HUGE to me!

Yep - thats approximately a 25% weight increase. The zinc electrode will
expand too: Zinc has a density of 7.14 vs 5.6 for ZnO, which implies
something like a 28% volume increase if all the zinc in the battery of is
oxidised when fully discharged. However, 100% oxidation is rather
unlikely in any practical battery, and dealing with the volume increase
means designing the case so it doesn't split when the battery is fully
discharged.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PowerFLARM portable: rechargeable battery recommendations ursus Soaring 1 February 1st 12 07:02 PM
Harry (finally) lights the torch! ...and etches some zinc off too! wright1902glider Home Built 29 February 22nd 09 07:23 PM
Powdered zinc oxide? Michael Horowitz Home Built 4 November 2nd 08 02:57 PM
Typhoon 'How much closer do you want me' Grouper Aviation Photos 1 May 25th 08 01:54 AM
Zinc Chromate in 2005 Michael Horowitz Home Built 4 October 16th 05 06:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.