Lithium Air: IBM's quest for the super-battery

The days of $1.50 gasoline are long gone, and high costs coupled with environmental concerns have ignited a search for the battery that will power the cars of the future. IBM is at the forefront of this effort with its development of the lithium air super-battery.
The goal "is to create a battery that will power the typical family car about 500 miles between recharges," explains Winfried Wilcke, Senior Manager, Nanoscale Science and Technology with IBM. "Today's batteries...fall short of this goal by quite a factor, with [the best batteries] only lasting approximately 200 to 240 miles."
Bridging this gap requires drastically increasing the battery's energy density by making it lighter. IBM reduces the weight by getting rid of the heavy transition metal oxides like cobalt oxide or manganese oxide and replacing them with a lightweight, high-surface carbon structure.
The lithium air battery represents "the highest energy density of any imaginable system," says Wilcke, "but it's not easy to do. It's a long-term project currently in its early science phases, but in the last six or seven months we have gotten a lot of positive results, which make me cautiously optimistic that this can actually work."
Wilcke hopes to have a lithium air battery in cars by 2020. A battery that could power a car for 500 miles would certainly be worth the wait.
More info:
IBM Research - Almaden web site: www.almaden.ibm...
IBM Research - Dr. Winfried Wilke: www.almaden.ibm...

[@louisbussum]

Times are a-changing ! If you are surprised that IBM is using Dell stuff, you are probably not aware that the IBM Personal Computer Division was sold of to Lenovo 6 years ago. IBM was leading edge in PC's when they were not yet fast moving consumer goods - just like IBM is in now the lead in the quest for the super-battery.

[@ranasayak]

Solar and wind are energy sources. Lithium battery is a energy store. So to store energy you need energy, which still would be received from coal/nuclear/oil/wind/solar. This is only going to be great for cars, where energy store is the problem. But to power the grid, we still need known sources of energy i.e. fossil fuels/ nuclear / solar / wind/ hydro

[@lukerides666]

i love how the first few comments are NOTHING TO DO with the potential these Li-Air batteries have. The only reason the EV has not been fully adopted by the car manufacturors, has been becase of battery storage. We are talking about a technology here that will get you 300 miles away form your house AND BACK on a single charge. Who really needs to do more than that? There you go, energy and fossil fuel demand dropped by 50% right there

[@building43]

Thanks for the note- ...and I apologize - had to notch out the background noise and this was the best I could do without distorting it even worse - way too loud in there....

[@Danster82]

I actually see this lithium air battery opening up the possibility of personalised drones for flight if its super lightwieght and far more powerful it would be ideal.

[@hamsterg0d]

Good luck guys. I hope these go in a Tesla or litmotors C-1.

[@shivadas11]

would b good for mobile phones, back up generators, UPS for home use....definatly laptops

[@NimrodTargaryen]

Great Video! we should have more of these, a follow-up with video animation of the process would be great

[@wullebulle123]

you guys save the world

[@marys.2301]

love the idea. problem is i will end using it when i am in a scooter and to old to drive. bummer

[@videosforcatsanddogs214]

Aging might just be cured by then. Look up Aubrey De Grey and David Sinclair on youtube.

[@Mickeycuatropatas]

Salt power batteries (salinity gradient energy or SGE) - batteries that in the lab are generating 4000W per square meter (extrapolated) using boron nanotubes (French research). Load your ship with salt instead of hydrocarbon fuel and the output is a salt solution diluted from the original solution but more saline than ocean water. When in harbors and rivers, switch to a stored battery solution such as the lithium air batteries. Many cruise ships already are using electric pod propulsion to move their props, so this is a feasible solution.

[@ericrodriguez1989]

How about graphine in li-ion batt vs lithium air batt?

[@TheMrTTucker]

I am doing a project on Electric Vehicles as part of my degree and was wondering if anyone could provide me with some reputable sources to back up the chart of 'Comparative Specific Energies' shown at approx 2mins. Thank You

[@antonnym214]

Okay, five years ago the technology was five years away. Where is it? I'll tell you where it is. It's five years away. It's ALWAYS five years away!

[@membender]

I think this ambitious project died in its first year (2011, when this was filmed). There were three publications that year and none since.

[@dawgp0und]

@louisbussum I am very much aware that IBM sold their PC division to Lenovo. In fact I own a Lenovo Thinkpad. It's just that IBM bashes Dell so much especially in their server division that it's just funny. In terms of the battery, do not trust IBM. My belief is humanity would fall due to IBM's big involvement in tech. Tech is good but let's keep a lid on it b4 it's get out of control and have a drastic effect on the world. That's just my 2cents.

[@dawgp0und]

It's funny that this is IBM and they are using Dell LCD monitors. I thought they are supposed to be competitors. I mean they bash DELL especially on their servers and yet they are using their products. LOL!! Those look like the Dell UltraSharp series. BTW

[@dawgp0und]

@35parkerm Obviously you care otherwise you wouldn't have come here written a comment!

[@ArkDiabLord]

the air we're breathing is not pure oxygen, nitrogen will also react to lithium, which means liquid would form, would you willing to carry a pure oxygen tank in your vehicle like a FCV with its hydro-bomb tank? and on the cathode side, the carbon base has pores for peroxide to form, as the peroxide phase getting thicker and thicker, its insulation will slow down or even prevent lithium movement. Sure, for the first few cycle you get very high capacity, but then it falls off over time... 500 miles? we'll see how long its gonna last after a few discharge & recharge. So solve its density degradation, then I will invest.

[@RyanHellyer]

We use giant tanks of explosive petrol now, so I think a small canister of oxygen is okay safety wise.

[@protektosafe]

The audio is awful. It drops in various places. I gave up after 5 minutes

[@silverbak22]

Andy G. Lithium is by far the greater of the two in terms of abundance. Beryllium wouldn't be practical at all

[@NUCLEARARMAMENT]

Metal-oxygen (also known as metal-air) electrochemical batteries are the future. They have the potential to be far, far more efficient than the use of either pure hydrogen, or hydrocarbons like gasoline, diesel--especially when used either in a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine--while at the same time having more energy content stored either per unit of mass or volume than those fuels. Also, the metals that will power these metal-air batteries are the only metals really worth pursuing, as they either are on-par with pure either pure hyrogen or hydrocarbons in terms of energy content stored per unit of weight, yet are worser in terms of energy content either stored per unit of mass or volume, especially in the case of lithium in regards of volumetric energy content in respect to hydrocarbons like gasoline and diesel; meanwhile, boron and beryllium--the relatively obscure, arcane, and underappreciated elements whose energy contents, in both mass and volume, have yet to be realized--completely and utterly blow pure hyrodgen, hydrocarbons, and even lithium out of the water! There is literally no contest; so, here they all are: Lithium's maximum theoretical energy content and abundance levels: Maximum theoretical specific energy: 43.1 megajoules per kilogram, or, 11.97 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. Maximum theoretical energy density: 23.01 megajoules per liter, or, 6.39 kilowatt-hours per liter. Abundance in Earth's crusts: 0.0017%; 17 ppm; 325.21 trillion metric tons. Abundance in Earth's oceans: 0.000017%; 170 ppb; 239.1883 billion metric tons. Beryllium: Maximum theoretical specific energy: 67.6 megajoues per kilogram, or, 18.78 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. Maximum theoretical specific energy: 125.1 megajoules per liter, or, 34.75 kilowatt-hours per liter. Abundance in Earth's crusts: 0.00019%; 1.9 ppm; 36.347 trillion metric tons. Abundance in Earth's oceans: 0.00000000006%; 0.6 ppt; 844,194 thousand metric tons. Boron: Maximum theoretical specific energy: 58.9 megajoules per kilogram, or, 16.36 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. Maximum theoretical energy density: 139.59 megajoules per liter, or, 38 kilowatt-hours per liter. Abundance in Earth's crusts: 0.00086%; 8.6 ppm; 164.518 trillion metric tons. Abundance in Earth's oceans: 0.00044%; 4.4 ppm; 6.190756 trillion metric tons. Now, compare energy contained in lithium, beryllium, and boron to that of gasoline, diesel, and kerosense: Hydrogen's maximum theoretical energy content (as a liquid, which only has an effect on volumetric energy content): Maximum theoretical specific energy: 141.86 megajoules per kilogram, or, 39.4 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. Maximum theoretical energy density: 8.49 megajoules per liter, or, 2.35 kilowatt-hours per liter. Gasoline's maximum theoretical energy content: Maximum theoretical specific energy: 46.4 megajoules per kilogram, or, 12.88 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. Maximum theoretical energy density: 34.2 megajoules per liter, or, 9.5 kilowatt-hours per liter. Diesel's maximum theoretical energy content: Maximum theoretical specific energy: 45.6 megajoules per kilogram, or, 12.66 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. Maximum theoretical energy density: 38.6 megajoules per liter, or, 10.72 kilowatt-hours per liter. After reviewing these values, I can finally be assured and rest my case on what the true future of energy storage belongs to: lithium-air, boron-air, and beryllium-air batteries, as a superior alternative to the continued dependence on fossil fuels, and the flawed alternative usage of hydrogen, which is even worse and just as polluting.

[@louisbussum]

@dawgp0und Your reasoning makes no sense....

[@flexairz]

The world can take care for itself.

[@dawgp0und]

@louisbussum What about it that doesn't make sense. My thinking was that IBM is involved in almost every aspect of technology which to me is monopolistic. IBM wants to dominate every sector of technology (ie server, retails, communications, energy, etc) which is again monopolistic. I mean I love IBM. I grew up with IBM but I want to give an honest objective reasoning to the direction IBM is going. Just my 2cents and I appreciate constructive criticism. Thank You!