HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

What about liquid metal batteries?

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

From a naive/quick glance taking a Musk style "first principles" look at them, being made of elements that are literally "dirt cheap" and available in major construction project quantities would seem to be a decisive advantage.

EDIT: Seems they ran into major problems with seals: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/541851/race-for-a-new-gri...

⬐ taneq

Going back 15-20 years, there was the ZEBRA battery which was looking pretty good. I don't know what happened to it. According to ZEVA the power output was fairly low so maybe that was the issue.[1]

At least one company[2] is pretty close to bringing a redox flow battery to market, which should have most of the advantages of molten salt / liquid metal batteries without the downside of having to keep it molten. The limiting factor seems to be electrode lifespan but even then the cycle life is huge (~3600-4000 full discharge cycles). Also from the numbers they give, round trip efficiency seems a bit lower (~80%) than LiIon / LiPoly.

[1] http://zeva.com.au/Tech/Batteries/ [2] http://redflow.com/

⬐ walrus01

I am not aware of any that are actually shipping as commercial products that I can buy with a net30 PO, everything so far is PR fluff, lab test and field beta tests.

I agree, grid load-shifting appears to be a stronger use case for these sodium batteries than anything mobile.

On a related note, there are other ways salt batteries are being explored for grid energy storage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery

https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to...

Quote from Prof. Donald Sadoway

"The point of University professors is to take graduate students and create new professors."

Great barn storming Ted performance, highly recommend just taking 15 mins or so for it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

I suppose it's my turn to link to another effort in this area, liquid salt batteries: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

They have the advantage of being much cheaper to manufacture, but I don't know how their energy density stacks up.

⬐ comboy

I remember watching this tedtalk. Very nice. Is anything known about the progress they made since then?

⬐ afarrell

http://www.ambri.com/ is the company that is bringing this tech to production.

Also, Donald Sadoway is a great teacher.

It's a bit dated now, but in March 2012, Dr. Sadoway gave a TED talk about how these batteries work:

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

MIT prof. Donald Sadoway here explains his large scale cheap "battery" - capturing the output of whole power stations if you like.

But that's not why you should watch it. Watch it because it is far and away the best demonstration for why you need universities, tenure and opinionated professors.

If you aren't whooping at the end of the talk, you have not spent long enough in and around academia.

#oldskool

⬐ MikeCapone

I came here to post about Sadoway's grid-scale liquid metal batteries. These, or others like it, have the potential to be absolutely world-changing, IMO.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

I am fascinated by the number of "disruptive technologies" That are appearing on my limited radar - if you know of any others dump them here - we can tidy them up and may e start a thread - it would be fascinating to see what HN thinks are disruptive within the next five years

Me:

Military:

- directed energy weapons. Real life trials of 25kw weapons Have shown ability to instantly deliver plastic explosive levels of energy (1g PETN ~ 1kj). Link this to optical targeting and you have ability to cut the wings off an entire airforce, stop any human walking a Ross miles of ground and plain old assassination from a drone.

The US has more aircraft carriers than most of the res of the world. What now?

Transport:

- driverless car - natch - electric cars - storage batteries could supply off line grid level storage too

Energy

- solar power from desert to city - grid level storage from LmBC

Medical

Err - need to dig out my notebook but its a start

Thoughts?

⬐ sbirchall

I think one of the most important disruptive technologies I've noticed over the years is the production of electrostatically controlled nano-valves. This (in my limited opinion) is on par with the "trick" life got involved with many billions of years ago when it chanced on lipid bi-layers with embedded protein gates. It promises a level of material science that is ultimately a phase transition in complexity for life. With the Nokia/Graphene news recently I am confidently hopeful that this technology will produce huge advances.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

I was thinking of disruptive in 5 years and disruptive in 50. This I assume is a 50year scale technology?

However, with apologies to Drexler, hasn't nano-technology just failed to deliver over past twenty years? What makes this trick so different?

⬐ sbirchall

yeah I can dig that, there's a hell of a lead-in for any nano-tech.

I guess this trick is different because it's a process or function - similar in vein to those used in the nano-tech drug delivery systems. Which, if you think about it, are very similar (in kind) to viruses in the way they work. Whereas the nano-valve allows the (directed/conscious/intelligent) production of controlled environments - which are similar to cellular structures.

When I first read about it I figured it would be jumped on straight away by the big material science players like Intel or IBM for the production of VERY highly controlled doping for instance. Which is why I think it could be accelerated in it's development in comparison to other nano-tech. But I'm no expert in this area. I'm just interested in the intersection between technological solutions and biological solutions and nano-tech is a big ping on my radar in that respect.

To me it represents a phase-transition in the development of life. First we had utilisation of latent energy, self replication, environmental stabilisation (cellular), multi-cellular structure, agent based systems, environmental stabilisation (social), meta-agency ("knowledge" and "culture") and now meta-matter. But as I say, this is not the considered analysis of an expert, just something I find intriguing. In my wildest dreams this new phase will attain stability and the descendents will look back on our current phase like we now do with mitochondria. (Suffice to say I'm a fan of "Deep Time").

[disclaimer, I work at one or more of the places commercializing these systems]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

Seeing how much progress is being made extremely rapidly on getting these types of technologies into the marketplace, the idea that the last five years have been stagnant is difficult to believe.

Unless, of course, all battery research was stagnant under Bush? I suppose that's possible, and what we've seen is the standard 5-10 year research backlog starting to catch back up to a lack of funding for oil alternatives.

Something like this: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_... ?

A solution: This TED video with Donald Sadoway talks about how his team is rethinking the design of large scale batteries for storing renewable energy

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

This article is from 2009. Here is a TED talk by Sadoway from 2012, if you want a more recent look at the technology: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

One potential solution is grid-scale liquid metal batteries:

http://lmbcorporation.com/

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

VCs are not too big, they are (apparently) investing in the wrong companies.

If humanity overall wins out, the next 20-30 years will see industries we can barely imagine grow to maturity. From electric driver-less cars, to new forms of power generation (even fusion), new building methods, new education, and vast mega-cities will spring out of nowhere.

In the West, in the rest of the world, we will see vast demand for things that are barely off the drawing board. And they will need support industries, innovating widgets and helpful doo-hickies.

All of which will take specialised knowledge, innovation and investment. Just what VCs are supposed to do.

(PS I strongly suspect Fred Wilson already knows this, is intelligent enough to be hiring clever VCs in India, China Sudan, and doing presumably cleverer things than I suggest.

But it annoys me that the article seems mostly - oh no! cloud is cheap, so there are no companies anymore anywhere in the world that need high risk investment. Gaaahh!)

Here is one that is a perfect example: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

Edit: added link, minor fixes

⬐ jeffool

Being 31, growing up when I did, sometimes the things discussed in TED, and the wonderful future you allude to, seem like flying cars.

And not to be down on you, or the future in general. Maybe this is a side effect of growing not only when I did, but where, being in more rural Georgia. Or being "not an optimist".

That all aside, power storage really does seem key. Imagine if electric cars could be refueled by an easily accessible battery change out? And one imagines if everything is electric, then advances in any power generation tech transferable to electricity instantly gives advantage to everyone. Yeah, that future is a romantic one. But I just don't know.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

Well, flying cars do exist: http://bostonherald.com/jobfind/news/technology/view/2022081...

To be less of a dick: I did put in a caveat of "if humanity wins" - my sort of catch-all term for avoiding the collapse of a global civilisation that arguably has been in existence since, well, Gutenburg, or possibly Newton.

But the idea is that the available-at-one-point-to-one-socieity-sum of human knowledge has been only expanding since a given point (the burning of library of Alexandria would count as a net loss of knowledge so it does not go far back this idea), and that if it is to keep exapnding we are going to solve something. Maybe cancer, maybe flying cars. Maybe something else.

But there are only two directions - up and down. I am hoping for the up. I can understand the doubt. We humans are real good at screwing it up. But ... I think the scientific method is permeating enough societies that even if Western world collapses, India, Brazil etc are likely to be independant civilisations themselves. (I have had pleasure of working with many Indian natives over here, and their generation is going to want some serious changes back home.)

⬐ jakarta

I don't think Fred's investors want to be sinking money in renewable energy. If you look at the returns to that asset class, they've been pretty bad.

It's great to do big things and change the world, but the pension funds backing Fred want to earn a good return.

⬐ dasil003

I wonder what the returns on social media and fiddly web apps will be looking back 10 years from now.

⬐ GFischer

For the VCs and pension funds, or the investors at large that trust the IPOing banks?

⬐ dasil003

For VCs. Just VCs.

⬐ gtCameron

For most of them, it won't matter what the return 10 years from now is, they are cashing out much sooner

⬐ dasil003

I just meant long enough for the benefit of hindsight. How will the corpus of Web 2.0 investments look. That's what I'm getting at.

⬐ antr

"returns to that asset class, they've been pretty bad."

Renewable energy assets have a pretty good IRR, in the mid-teens to low 20% - and even higher if you look at the 1995-2004 vintage.

To any LP that is an above average return, in fact, it is above any equity return threshold for asset manager incentives/carry.

Where did you get the data for you to say that "they've been pretty bad"?

⬐ lifeisstillgood

I always return to this bet with John Kay:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6BLqprHdwygC&lpg=PA15...

returns for the most successful railroad companies were mere 5% - competition kept things down (although speculation in early years lead to phenomenal returns - if sold)

However, a moderate VC return is 3fold over ten years - which is ~12.5% YoY (unless my maths is bad). But then that is 12.5% of millions and millions not just one company.

⬐ antr

I struggle to understand your point - I'd love to here a bit more to understand it.

The IRR numbers I mention refer to UFCF/equity, i.e. no exit (hence return) via company/asset sale.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

That the return (assuming no sale at top of a bubble) for the best companies in the biggest industry of 19C was only 5%-10%. (Based on equity, it seems Harford did not calculate dividend return which may make a difference)

Making 15-20% without an exit is a great deal - supporting I think your point.

⬐ antr

Indeed, I agree. I'd be curious to know how common was the use of debt during that period. 5%-10% is a good return on an unlevered asset, debt could provide an additional turn - then, I don't know how the Kd and CPI was during that period.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

During the 19th Century, U.S. railroads relied primarily on debt issues to finance their growth. This policy contributed to major financial crises (www.biu.ac.il/soc/ec/wp/16-01/16-01.pdf)

Is that what you mean - or derivatives?

⬐ antr

just wanted to know - now it's clear

All I've read about CCS over the years make it sound more like a marketing/stalling tactic. There are huge problems to be overcome, most of the worst kinds of coal plants aren't compatible with it anyway, and there are big risks from leaks, etc..

All the effort put into making it happen should probably be used on long-term solutions rather than a band-aid.

More wind, more solar, more geothermal, more hydro, more investments in efficiency, and grid-scale liquid-metal batteries (see this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_... ) seem to be a better bet.

⬐ DennisP

I did the math on those liquid-metal batteries a while back, and figured out that getting an adequate amount of grid storage would take about a thousand years of antimony production.

Tom Murphy's Do the Math blog is pretty good for this sort of thing. Most renewables can't scale up to run civilization (nor can their combination), and storage is an unsolved problem at the scale we'd need.

The two non-fossil energy sources that could do the job are solar (not counting the storage problem) and advanced nuclear.

⬐ bozostew

I think you did "math" but not necessarily "the math" on liquid metal batteries.

⬐ MikeCapone

> I did the math on those liquid-metal batteries a while back, and figured out that getting an adequate amount of grid storage would take about a thousand years of antimony production.

Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean at current rates of production? You do realize that supply has no incentive to exceed demand, correct? If demand increases rapidly, there will be a huge incentive to increase production. As far as I know, antimony isn't rare and there's no reason why we could produce significantly more and match demand for these types of batteries.

⬐ DennisP

Haven't been able to find it...I think it may have actually been 1000 years magnesium, 10,000 antimony, but I'd have to figure it again to be sure. I calculated by assuming each metal was about a third of full-load weight of a shipping container, taking the storage capacity they claimed per container-size battery, and using Tom Murphy's estimates of how much storage we'd need.

I did assume current production rates. However, increasing the mining output by a factor of hundreds wouldn't necessarily be trivial. For example, wikipedia reports that China has annual antimony production of 120K tonnes, which is 89% of the world's total. The largest deposit is only 2.1 million tonnes.

Wiki also mentions that "antimony was identified as one of 12 critical raw materials for the EU in a report published in 2011, primarily due to the lack of supply outside China."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony#Top_producers_and_prod...

⬐ MikeCapone

I don't have answers, but I know that unless an element is very rare in the Earth's crust, price signals are usually pretty good at making supply rise very rapidly. I was reading about the beginning of the nuclear age and how everybody thought that uranium would be in very short supply, but it turned out that once it becomes a valuable commodity, lots of cash goes into exploration and many new significant deposits are found. If there's no incentive, of course there's no point in even looking for the stuff.

I know that's fuzzy, but I would guess that professor Sadoway did what he said that he did, which is to pick an element that is common and that should be cheap.

I'm also not sure quite how many of these types of batteries we'd need. There are other methods of storage (ie. hydro power in places like Quebec, Norway, etc, which can act as giant regional batteries) and we can make the grid much smarter about demand-response and things like that. The solution won't be a single silver bullet, but a combination of things, including efficiency (lots of low-hanging fruits there, despite all the progress we've made -- the Rocky Mountain Institute has a lot of good stuff about this).

⬐ DennisP

That's a good point, but those "price signals" could still result in the element being very expensive for quite a while, if we have to scale up production by two or three orders of magnitude.

Hydro power is good as far as it goes, but there's only so much you can build: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-stor...

But that's a good point on uranium. In fact, in Japan right now they're extracting uranium from seawater at about double the current cost of mined uranium. There's enough uranium in seawater to last us millions of years, especially if we went with fast reactors (which can burn U238, a hundred times more common than U235).

That seems like a pretty good silver bullet to me.

⬐ MikeCapone

> That's a good point, but those "price signals" could still result in the element being very expensive for quite a while, if we have to scale up production by two or three orders of magnitude.

I'm not saying new supply will come online instantaneously, but it could be faster than most of us expect if price spikes enough. But in any case, grid-scale liquid-metal batteries would no doubt roll out like most other technologies, which is progressively enough to let supply mostly catch up. In the same way that cell phones or computers didn't go from zero to millions in a day, this will probably be done over many years.

Solar and windpower are currently inadequate, but that doesn't always have to be the case, especially if we can develop grid-scale liquid metal batteries like this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_...

⬐ greedo

Here's a link I've posted before displaying the current amount of energy produced by the various sources. The amount of land that we'd have to devote to solar to make a meaningful contribution would be unsustainable.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/en...

⬐ MikeCapone

I'm not sure, I've often seen maps with areas required to power the world with solar* and while they are big, they aren't impossible, especially if done smartly (big solar farms in deserts connected via HCDC transmission lines, but also solar PV and solar water heaters on rooftops close to users).

* http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/200...