New Carbon Dioxide Battery Solutions

[@Allin7days]

Two interesting facts regarding battery: 1. The very first car was running on battery. 2. It takes a decade or two from science to engineering.

[@richardhalter7825]

I have seen so many "big advances in batteries" over the past 10 years, and no new batteries on the market. Feels sort of like fusion power - always coming but never getting here.

[@TheAkashicTraveller]

It seems like everyone and their grandma's got a next gen battery in a lab somewhere but no one's gotten near the point of being able to sell them yet.

[@marknelson2073]

@@TheAkashicTraveller Producing a small number of prototype batteries in a lab is one thing. Coming up with an economic and efficient production method can be more problematic. Some of the Chemicals sound potentially nasty, but I see Dimethyl Sulfoxide is used in topical medicines. About two lines into the wiki I realized my sister's have used it for their horses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide Molybdenum Disulfide is even used as a dry lubricant.

[@novantha1]

You are correct, but that's a slightly...Narrow view of the issue. Lead Acid batteries were made mass prodcable in roughly the late 1880s or so, about the same time proof of concept automobiles were being made (although they were steam powered at the time). They were widely in use in around the 1910s onward, and the lead acid battery was only commonplace in vehicles in around the 1920s or so. That's about 40 years from the technology's "breakthrough" to its rapid deployment. The Lithium Ion battery was "discovered" sometime in the 1970s, although it was a highly impractical "breakthrough" as there was still quite a bit of work to be done, with it taking until the early 2010s before it was deployed as a realistic solution for electric vehicles, and now occasionally in fringe grid storage situations. That's roughly 40 years again. Now, there have been plenty of advances in various promising battery technologies through the 2010s, and each of them have their own promising applications, and will probably be as impressive in their end result as lithium ion batteries were to lead acid ones, but this time it'll probably be faster. I give it until 2024 that we start employing alternate chemistry grid storage liquid batteries, lead by the company Ambri, who made an impressive breakthrough in the early 2010s. They're currently establishing grid level storage of their calcium anitmony liquid metal batteries, and are slated to start delivering in 2022. I'm not entirely sure of their economic figures, but I have a sneaking suspicion they've got investors with deep pockets, but even if they don't have that, their batteries will get a ton of attention once they're in active production, and I suspect we'll see a doubling of their company's battery output on a roughly annual basis, and it's not going to take long before even a small company, say, rated at $100,000 gets quite big quite quickly. That said, liquid metal batteries aren't exactly appealing for EV purposes, but I digress. The point I'm making is that due to computers technology is progressing at an ever faster pace, and while it seems like advancements aren't happening that's only if you take a global results based approach; the technology is coming, advancements are being made on a daily basis, but it takes a little while for advancements to show in the results.

[@theosphilusthistler712]

It's tantric technology - just lingering on the verge of coming.

[@Klaatu2Too]

@@TheAkashicTraveller The next next gen battery - solid state. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWHRcmt5m911p6M

[@forgoodnessache5399]

Plants, as in the vegetative kind, sequester carbon just fine. Just plant more and more diversity of them. All over the world. No need for technology/geoengineering (which precariously sequesters CO2 at 100s of times the volume of Carbon), IP, profits, etc. to solve this problem.

[@TroyRubert]

But as soon as those plants die the release most of it back when they decay.

[@forgoodnessache5399]

@@TroyRubert Nope. First there are the root exudates, which add up to 40% of the carbon produced through photosynthesis. Then there's whatever is not oxidized. And that's just for the annuals-: the perennials just keep on pumping carbon out of their roots deep into the soil for long-term storage of carbon.

[@TroyRubert]

For Goodness Ache yeah no I don’t think that’s how it works trees before a bacteria that can break down lignin would get buried and would sequester that carbon since that’s no longer the case decay breaks it down before it is buried.

[@forgoodnessache5399]

@@TroyRubert I don't understand most of your reply (before editing if you do). Roots of all plants exude carbon into the soil. But with dead trees and plants, yes much of the above ground body oxidizes back to CO2. This is why perennials (grasses especially) are the best.

[@TroyRubert]

For Goodness Ache kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHy9k2WVq8iBisk

[@mikespark72]

You deserve way more subs then you do have. I hope youtube starts pushing your content out there, more people need to know about what you teach. thanks man!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Mike. I really appreciate your support.

[@JustHaveaThink]

@@joeboxter3635 Sadly I think you're right Joe. I have concluded that I will indeed need to sprinkle a number of 'crowd pleasers' in from time to time in order to build an audience who may possibly watch and listen to the important messgaes in the more climate based videos.

[@trueriver1950]

Well the Y-T Algorithm offered me a JHaT a few weeks ago, probably because i watch a few windmill and energy storage videos. I subscribed immediately and am a regular viewer now: I watch them as they come out and watch a historic one beteeen times so I will end up seeing most of the back catalogue. About two in three get a "like" from me too. I also appreciatethe ad free aspiration. So yes the algorithm is rooting for Dave and I am encouraging it...

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

This is such a new idea to me that I simply don't know what to make of it right now. CO2 has always been the end point of energy generation, not an input to it. I'm going to need to mull this over a while to see if it goes anywhere.

[@njm3211]

Hats off to you Brits for the quality videos so many of you contribute to KZbin.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Cheers Norman. Much appreciated! All the best. Dave

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@greggm7056]

Thanks Dave! As always, very interesting.

[@ronkirk5099]

500 charge cycles seems pretty low, but with the high energy density, you could live with degradation of 20-25% before replacement to get more cycles. New battery technologies are really exciting and driving us faster and faster to a green energy future. Thanks for the great videos.

[@crazEgamer201]

Not really. He said 5% reduction in capacity after 500 cycles. If you compare that to a known lithium ion battery, the Samsung 30T, it'll have a 40% reduction of capacity after 250 cycles. Now, that's an unfair example as that's after discharging the battery at 35 amps, but it'll be interesting to see how the carbon dioxide battery scales with load. Battery lifecycle and capacity loss is almost a science unto itself, which is why Tesla manages to squeeze so much more life out of its batteries than Nissan does, because they're on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to battery management.

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

Ha! "green energy future." They are not going to stop burning fossil fuels, just because they've invented new tech, because they've put too much money into the fossil fuel industry, and oil & gas will become cheaper than it is today.

[@janeas2008]

5000 not 500 cycles

[@AnalystPrime]

@@bundleofperceptions1397 If oil and gas are going to become cheaper in the future it will be because this CO2 capture tech will allow for creating them from air and water with renewable energy. Especially as we could just make the desired hydrocarbons more directly and skip the horribly expensive refining phase. Oil was originally wanted because overhunting had made whale oil too expensive, and the first ICEs were designed to use benzene because it was an unwanted side product of lamp oil industry so it was cheap. Since easily accessible oil was tapped a century ago and harder to tap wells ran dry decades ago the cost of oil and gas you actually get from the ground is only going to go up.

[@ZubairKhan-vs8fe]

Your videos are so professional and the graphics are amazing. Thank you for simplifying the topics

[@realvanman1]

This sounds stunningly phenomenal! How is this video over a year old and I’m just now seeing it?? I wonder what kind of progress has been made in the meantime?

[@9squares]

I am learning that Kelp is a fantastic carbon dioxide sink. Kelp apparently offers significant other benefits to the environment as well.

[@steveh1844]

Tim Christensen kelp, sea grass & mangroves. When otters were hunted to almost extinction in the west coast of US, kelp forest were also destroyed by sea urchins which otters previously ate & controlled. It’s the animals which are the necessary tools for maintaining our atmosphere - unfortunately, when humans multiply, biodiversity disappears.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Carbon dioxide is good. We need MORE of it in the atmosphere! Like 1200 ppm to green the deserts! I would see the temperature to be 2-3 degree higher than now to make the hot deserts wet!

[@macmcleod1188]

@@WadcaWymiaru no. Billions are going to be displaced from the equatorial regions and die now. We're looking at temperatures sustained over 110 to 120 degrees which will render those areas uninhabitable. We are burning hundreds of millions of years a fossil fuel. 10 to 15 years of plant growth is not going to balance that out even remotely. On top of that rises and sea-level will render many areas uninhabitable and increased storm activity will devastate those in low-lying regions and in the new low-lying regions. You actually sound like someone who's part of a death cult or you've gotten hold of some very bad information.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

@@macmcleod1188 Temperature of ultraviolet? Plants LOVE CO2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iV7RpIiVecZ8kKc Whatever - the sea level is STABLE! See: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b57NgKCppq6cmM0 Storms are getting stronger ONLY when weather is cold, not warm! A difference in temperatures cause wind to blow !!! The most violent storms occured during the "little ice age". About fossil fuels...limesotne is DOMINATING then in carbon content: www.sociedadred.org/upload/2017/11/23/what-are-carbon-sinks-fern-sources-and-sinks-of-carbon-l-d673437b0e349029.PNG (that is tenth of the mass of the Moon!) also CO2 is proven to not increase the temperature, even on the 1 degree...

[@gearhead1302]

@@WadcaWymiaru How do you think you got information like that hmm? You think lay people figured it out by themselves? No SCIENTISTS did. They are well aware of all the dumb things you say about limestone blah blah blah it's been figured in. Why don't you just listen to people that are way smarter than you, arrogant piece if shit.

[@robroysyd]

Nature invented a CO2 'battery' around 360 million years ago. We call them trees. Solar powered, self replicating and can be used to build things as well as store energy and carbon. The tree battery does take decades to fully charge which is an issue if we want to quickly sequester carbon. A much faster plant is Azolla which also fixes nitrogen.

[@barbaralindhjem2488]

Industrial hemp is also a quick user of CO2 with the plus of being able to be used for fuel, feed, hempcrete, fabric and BIO degradable plastic

[@MilesDavisKDAB]

@@barbaralindhjem2488 Plants are great ( I'm a biologist) but they don't store electricity in a readily usable form.

[@ricos1497]

@@MilesDavisKDAB So we should design our living systems around using less electricity rather than more.

[@MilesDavisKDAB]

@@ricos1497 Why? Electricity is wonderful it does so much for us and if we can make it from renewable sources like wind & wave etc and store it successfully we can have all the benefits without the drawbacks of burning fossil fuels. Would you really like to live without the internet, CT and MRI scanners, lighting, power tools and so much more? I know I wouldn't.

[@ricos1497]

@@MilesDavisKDAB I didn't say that. I said we should aim to use less. Design our environment and cities to use less. You mention the wonderful things electricity does, which only an idiot would suggest doing without. You don't mention the far greater energy waste that goes into inefficiency and things we simply don't need.

[@juliaset751]

Battery technology is moving forward and that is very good. I can envision a time when we will no longer talk about renewables with the caveat “but the storage”.

[@alaneasthope2357]

With this in an EV you could travel 1,000 miles on a single charge. 500 charging cycles would give you a car that could travel 500,000 miles before needing a new battery! I do hope this isn't one of those scientific discoveries that never makes it to commercial production, because the planet needs this.

[@mattw9764]

Thanks for this clear and well presented update. It's truly interesting and possibly impactful news. I just want to point out that that you're reporting here about research that originates in an institution that has been built up with massive amounts of public money over decades and centuries. Also, the research's proximate funding, the MIT Energy Initiative Seed Fund, self styles as "Pairing MIT’s world-class research teams with industry and government to develop solutions to the world’s energy challenges." So, before anyone claims this research for an innovative private sector, it's not or at least not in large measure. It's applied materials science or chemical engineering research (there's a lot of overlap between these two fields) carried out largely on the back of public investment.

[@eriklaken1025]

Matt W this What they do all the time and take advange Off public resources.

[@sldulin]

"...game changing...breakthrough...icing on the cake...revolutionary..." Wonderful. All our problems are solved. Interesting to see that you've become such an enthusiastic cheerleader for techno-optimism. We're into the realm of psychology here now.

[@laurencevanhelsuwe3052]

My thoughts exactly. What I don't understand about this channel is that it comes across as pretty scientific, but if you run some numbers on any proposed solutions, you come crashing down to earth pretty quick. This video was pure hopium. The latest paper co-signed by 11'000 scientists leaves little to the imagination. WASF.

[@rufanuf1]

Your programmes are fantastic. Thanks.

[@davidhawkins7138]

A gigajoule = 277.8 kwh - which has an average cost of $27.78 (USA). This means the operating cost of this system is close to the $20-$50 ranges for carbon tax plans and proposals. This generates a significant money-making opportunity if it can be introduced on an industrial scale. Gotta figure out an efficient way to get the C out of the CO2 though. We need to get rid of too much CO2 for it to be sequestered as a compressed gas.

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@zachfox7771]

absolutuely brilliant, both of them but especially the MIT one

[@ramblerandy2397]

Another nice tech video, nicely explained. It just shows that the technological capability is out there being researched. It just needs the will to fasttrack it. The big stopper is the oil industry, and those with a significant finger in the pie. However, the oil industry could easily save itself by being part of the changeover, and not filling the world with FUD.

[@melodysouljahrootsdubpress5539]

I love this channel. Always really interesting, keep it up!

[@TheLightningII]

I'd love to see this channel talk about Energy Return on Energy Invested or EROEI. One of the biggest hurdles renewables will need to overcome is the fact that your generator, whether it be wind, solar or whatever along with its storage medium, needs to produce more energy(about 15x as much if you want to still live in a modern society) than it took to produce, transport, install, and maintain. Solar power, with the capacity factor it has in most countries, coupled with even the best battery technology currently available would lead to it being a net consumer of energy rather than a producer. If batteries are going to be able to solve the problem renewables being intermittent and non-dispatchable, they will need to have both very high energy density and take very little energy to produce.

[@davestagner]

Do you have any math on this? Any numbers to back up this assertion? I actually just did some math on this today. A 100w solar panel requires about 200kwh to manufacture. With a 20 year lifespan and 30% functional efficiency (accounting for night, bad angles, clouds, etc), it will generate about 5000kwh in its lifetime - a 25:1 EROEI. A lithium-ion battery is about 50kwh to make a 1kwh battery. A 1kwh battery should offer a couple of days of storage for a 100w solar panel. Let’s say we use seven of those up over twenty years. This puts us at 550kwh to make 5000kwh of energy over 20 years, close to 10:1 EROEI. If you think my math is wrong or my facts are wrong, please give me an update. Otherwise, maybe reconsider your argument in light of the math?

[@andrewsteinhaus8267]

Thanks for getting to the details of the reaction

[@paulsutton5896]

A good way to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is to grow plants.

[@raybin6873]

That might work....let's try it! 😁

[@Maric18]

its to grow plants and to keep them from composting/decomposing/burning forever the second part is the hard part. Alternatively, the amount of living plant matter also is currently not burning, so just an overall increase in the biomass could work If we, for example, covered the entire space of brazil and the usa in trees (where there are none currently) that would just basically be enough for a bit

[@BenVost]

This is from almost three years ago. Do you have any update on the feasibility of such systems?

[@rokadamlje5365]

Im a bit sceptical on those theoretical energy densities. I think they are reffering to just cathode. Not including anode and electrolyte and any metal that is used as structural material in the cell. Also, this would not use much co2 in itself. Easiest carbon storage would be coal. But well, we are making energy out of it instead. The most intriguing usage of this would be rebreathers for divers and astronauts. And life support systems.

[@raw238]

Thug life approved👍😂

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@SeeNickView]

Absolutely fascinating. Although I picked engineering as my focus in college, it's always been on the back of my mind to go back to school and go more of the route of academia than industry. It's just these kinds of inventions that make me want to take the leap! Thank you for the coverage Dave. All the best 🤙

[@CubbyTech]

Great stuff, thank you for sharing these awesome new inventions. Great background music, I didn't see it credited.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Cubby. It's credited on the end screen

[@CubbyTech]

The 'title' music is credited, not the music that runs throughout the video...

[@JustHaveaThink]

@@CubbyTech Hi Cubby. Just checked. You're quite right. My apologies. The backing track is called “Summer”, which you can find at www.bensound.com I've changed the graphic now, but tomorrow's vid was already uploaded so it will be correct from next week. All the best. Dave

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@antdavis3843]

Excellent and very interesting video, thanks!

[@rogerbarton497]

I thought you were going to describe a battery that absorbs CO2 when it's being charged and releases carbon solids when discharged, now that would be a game changer. As wells as the applications mentioned in the video, CO2 is used extensively for MIG welding.

[@omsingharjit]

But co2 is gas , not solid so how can be it use as Anode or Cathode ?

[@AjayTiwari-en9nz]

I am surprised why your channel doesn't have more subscribers.

[@steevesdd]

Instead of storing the co2. Add H hydrogen and create designer synthetic fuels. They could be part of the feed stock for the process or sold as a fuel for jets or some other high value fuel that is hard to replace from renewables.

[@Lorendrawn]

Glass half fulll: the Carbon in a LiCO2 battery isn't clogging up one terminal, it's synthesizing graphene! Scrape it off and keep on keeping on!

[@clarusfish]

It would be great to hear how this technology has progressed from 2 years ago! Thanks

[@angelatester2471]

Thanks for the video. Very interesting and hopeful. Good luck, researchers. Keep going.

[@BrentHasty]

They should pair these with data centers using the low grade waste heat of the computers to further expand the turbine inlet pressure.

[@reginaldgevers6701]

Excellent! Sounds very promising!

[@kiwidaza]

Good work , Very informative.

[@MegaSnail1]

I agree this technology sounds like a game changer and that compressed CO2 could be made available to the emerging concrete industry turning CO2 into cement. My biggest interest is identifying investment streams to support these kinds of break throughs. Perhaps you could do a segment on the prospects for funding these kinds of amazing break throughs. Thank you as always for your fine work. You are the main reason I am hopeful for the future in addition to the US's recently more functional democracy.

[@lawrencebarrett4997]

7x specific energy density may not have a substantial effect on consumer electronic devices such as phones because usually those devices care more about energy normalized by volume. You can make your battery 7x lighter per kW hr and without improving kW hr/L measurements. Especially, when using the sort of highly porous electrodes that these types of batteries usually use. That being said, I have not read these papers. They may show an improvement in the volumetric capacity as well. Usually, the volumetric capacity improvements are less than the specific capacity improvements. The vehicle example is a much better one as transportation applications usually care about weight more than volume.

[@maramé.r]

The most appropriate way to remove and sequester CO2 is growing trees. We need forest cover additionally to regulate the hydrological cycle, reduce flooding, prevent soil erosion/pulsatile run-off and importantly provide habitat to enhance biodiversity. So easy to do for all cultures with no expensive technology

[@johncrisp352]

This was a great informative video Sir. Thank You.

[@denuncimesmo2568]

WOW Dave its amazing news

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@jbgood37]

horticulture could use the batteries to store cheap night-time electricity to reduce costs and generate the co2 for local use

[@El_Croc]

So does that MIT CO2 'capture' battery charge/discharge better when hot? Stated it works at room temp but is it better heated? Releases CO2 when discharging though is it exothermic? Sorry haven't read the research yet - hoping someone has and can answer the above questions.

[@johnthatcher2349]

I wonder how many battery technologies have disappeared with the help of big oil?

[@HansWeberHimself]

Any updates?

[@MilesDavisKDAB]

Necessity is the mother of invention. Massive potential financial rewards help as well. Let's hope these new techs are able to help with the CO2 issue and lead to a cleaner world for all life.

[@TheArmchairrocker]

Great news! Can't wait till this finds its way to market in 30 years.

[@paulcooper8818]

Bright news, hope it pans out

[@ElijahPerrin80]

Waste streams could be converted to energy with geo carbon sequestration using plasma gasification providing energy, heat and acting as a carbon sink.

[@forgoodnessache5399]

Dream on. Who profits? No need for these convoluted, engineered and profit-driven schemes when just learning and mimicking nature is all we need to do. The answer lies in maximizing photosynthesis and therefore sequestration of carbon (not CO2) in the soil (not ridiculous caverns). With profit being widely distributed (to farmers, if the policy is well written) rather than to corporations and lawyers for tech that won't even work.

[@ElijahPerrin80]

@@forgoodnessache5399 Oh I absolutely agree and algae is one of many good options for carbon sequestration along with no till agriculture and the use of Biochar for soil amendments. The fact we have not focussed on agriculture is a crime and the carbon is a food source we need to benefit from. All the above and I do question the validity of using geo sequestration so I do agree. I have been looking into Oceanic Thermal Energy Conversion as an option also as a carbon sink in algae while producing energy among other commodities. Worth a look.

[@forgoodnessache5399]

@@ElijahPerrin80 I will, and I'll put three out for you and others: 1.) Regenerative agriculture. 2.) GreenWave (.org) 3.) Walter Jehne

[@robmcilroy1894]

Interesting new science. The first article is not going to achieve much change except making batteries with higher energy density ,good for power to weight applications.but cycling is a problem as current Li ion is good for ten thousand cycles. I can see potential with the second carbon capture tech being used in an intensive greenhouse operation depending on cost of the equipment (on the face of it looks a complicated manufacturing process) and energy costs of running it as opposed to current systems . Since greenhouse ,underground vertical grow systems will be one of the only ways to produce enough food to feed the masses of today and the future on the path we are on ,this may be useful . It would most likely just add to the cost of fossil fuel power systems ,therefore making them even less competitive with renwables.We really need a game changer technology that can be rapidly rolled out at scale if we want to live anything like we do now, of which I don't see in this technology or any others currently on offer. And in the meantime the clock is ticking .

[@Chobaca]

How expensive will it be though?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Good question. I guess market forces will decide...

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Chobaca, that is the key question. If we can't afford it, it really doesn't matter how good it is.

[@Buzzhumma]

Amazing technology Dave...... I am currently exploring the development of a solid state battery technology that uses carbon dioxide in the seperator to act as a ion ferry ⛴ ! Exciting times in this ever changing workd ! 👍🏻

[@lumpisolar]

come on; carbon dioxide in batteries will not even make a dent into global carbon dioxide generation

[@MqKosmos]

Still good selling point

[@MqKosmos]

People buy those co2 wrist bands... So xD

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

What do you base that statement on?

[@vedritmathias9193]

The battery that will siphon CO2 out of the air, I think, will have a bigger impact than any other carbon-based battery. Could be a game changer.

[@lumpisolar]

@@bundleofperceptions1397 Just consider the mass balance. How many tons of batteries will be produced in a best case scenario? How many tons of CO2 can be absorbed by these batteries? How many tons of CO2 do we have to remove from the air? Besides, the battery does not consuming CO2, it just uses and releases it in a cyclical process of charging and discharging.

[@gustavmeyrink_2.0]

The really clever way of using the LiCO2 battery would be in a way that removes the carbon from the cell and uses fresh CO2 from the air during charging. Basically as a power source/storage that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and produces carbon as waste.

[@TheAkashicTraveller]

So, the next battery in the video then :P

[@douglashopkins8070]

Or design the first battery system you mentioned to use new atmospheric co2 with each charging cycle. I think that this would be a nonstarter for consumer batteries... but for grid scale batteries you can work in some extra bells and whistles.

[@alfredovazquez7917]

Cool I live in Chicago, I was going to attend uic but decided to go down state

[@phildavis9671]

Need to combine this tech with the liquid air system.

[@OldGamerNoob]

It makes me wonder with some of these new battery chemistries that boast much higher energy/power density, if the problem really is just repeated rechargability, it makes me wonder how cost effective any of them would be in a disposable AA form.

[@OldGamerNoob]

additionally, precharging a disposable battery out of the CO2 in the air and then leaving it in a landfill somewhere to keep the carbon out of the atomsphere all together sounds like a wonderful option.

[@jesperarvidsson4281]

Would require quite a large battery for a large ship engine - emitting maybe 30 tons of CO2/h ??

[@BeyondFunction1]

What do the UIC researchers say about the power density of their battery? The links you posted have nothing to say about this (can't speak to one of them, because, well, £42), and some further googling turned up nothing.

[@YodaWhat]

This is fantastic news. How long until they reach the marketable stage?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Some years I suspect. But they've set up a commercial enterprise to market it so might be sooner.

[@YodaWhat]

@@JustHaveaThink -- It was misleading for MIT to say "The electrodes have a natural affinity for carbon dioxide and readily react with its molecules in the airstream or feed gas" because that makes it sound like CO2 capture _generates power_ when in fact the opposite is true.

[@imagidan]

@@JustHaveaThink I wonder do you think we should see it as one of these technologies is better than the other or can both of these technologies be fused together? Either way, the more testing, the better!

[@FrankLowe1949]

I have 2 lead carbon batterys in a golf cart an they are doing very very well.

[@ashanmendis8091]

what is the energy density and the price per watt

[@RikkerdHZ]

1876 W-h/kg

[@ashanmendis8091]

@@RikkerdHZ damn charge cycles and cost per Watt

[@RikkerdHZ]

@@ashanmendis8091 Have you watched the video? Haha. 500 charge cycles with a loss of +/- 5%, and the cost is probably still VERY high because it's super new technology.

[@TCBYEAHCUZ]

So basically, molybdenum will become an even MORE valuable element?

[@SeeNickView]

Wonder what that spells out for it's supply chains. Hope we can establish better working and pollution conditions than what we've done for cobalt, silicon, and nickel.

[@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati]

The carbon capture...would it work in space suits?

[@livingladolcevita7318]

damn just as I was going to comment you answered the point i.e using the co2 to supply greenhouses lol

[@fancyIOP]

No one ever talks about what happens to the ground where Co2 is saved. Won't it damage the land in the long run or would it help it in some way? Everyone wants to put Co2 underground but what will happen in that very same ground?

[@Ironic1950]

You are confusing sequestration of CO2 in soils - quite a lot, and perfectly safe and natural - with filling depleted oil/salt deposits with captured CO2...

[@fancyIOP]

@@Ironic1950 OK cool thanks, I was just wondering if there won't be any damage in the long run but thanks for clarification.

[@billblomgren9618]

You don't want atmospheric CO2 much lower than the current levels if you want plant life to survive.. if it goes down by 1/2, you have world wide die off of all the plants..> Remember CO2 is food for plants.

[@davidellis279]

Very nicely explained and in a way I could understand, if this is all true then these systems could be used very efficiently to combat our carbon emissions and go along way to helping the environment recover from the damage we have done.

[@undertow2142]

The CO2 battery would be great for grid level storage. Then use the c02 to make methane and launch starships.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Another silly goon living in Fantasy Land.

[@thebionicwoman1762]

ThanQ ❤️👍

[@AnalystPrime]

It's good if these batteries become cheap and reliable enough to be used in cars and other places, but it's the CO2 collection that is the really important invention. If this tech allows for easy capture of CO2 then any project where traditionally people have burned stuff to create the CO2 needed becomes cheaper to do this way because the collector machine and a renewable energy source to power it will ALWAYS be cheaper one time purchase than paying for fuel to burn every day. And if the dream of cheap, lightweight, reliable and efficient batteries won't happen yet, we can easily use the captured CO2 and hydrogen cracked from water to create hydrocarbons that can be used as fuel for vehicles and reserve power plants. Doesn't matter how inefficient that is as a form of energy storage, as the power will be coming from excess renewable energy production and only raw materials needed can literally be collected from air; it may not be completely free but it's almost as good as.

[@thebionicwoman1762]

I don't understand... How does CO2 differ from pure CO2 & what will happen to it if it is pumped into the earth? ThanQ Gr8 presentations 👍

[@JustHaveaThink]

The incoming gas stream is air, which contains CO2, as well as oxygen and nitrogen and all the other stuff. The outgoing product of dischagre is ONLY the CO2 that the battery captured at charge up. Storing CO2 underground is actually trickier that people realise. If it's not stored in the correct type of substrate then it'll just leak out back into the atmosphere again, so it does need to be done very carefiully. There's a facility in Iceland locking CO2 away in volcanic rock, which seems to be a good solution but not available everywhere of course.

[@ulrichraymond8372]

Can these CO2 batteries be used near volcanic regions if so they can be used to also be used to cool the lava to slow down its rate of flow to existing towns.

[@TheHowtoDad]

This seems too good to be true...but if it's true this is VERY exciting

[@adlockhungry304]

What about solid state batteries?

[@bob_frazier]

Who decided that the climate just prior to the dawn of the industrial age is the best temperature for earth? The climate has always been changing on earth, will always be changing. How many ppm of CO2 is perfect for earth? What would be worse, a too warm earth, or a too cool one?

[@fennadikketetten1990]

let me refute that with actual science: skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

[@EricAwful313]

How is any of this beyond lithium when it all contains lithium, an element in limited supply?

[@noergelstein]

Given that this can filter CO2 out of atmospheric air, would this also be useful for indoor air regeneration?

[@lestermarshall6501]

It only removes the CO2 so the nitrogen level is still the same. Therefore it wouldn't concentrate oxygen to a higher level. Oxygen concentrators use a membrane the lets oxygen flow past but not any of the other gases in the atmosphere. If you need a scrubber like system, such as a rebreather like certain dive systems use, it might be good for that.

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@kevinjpluck]

I'd need to know how long a cycle lasts is before knowing whether 7,000 or even 50,000 cycles is a lot.

[@lestermarshall6501]

What I want to know is how long it takes to recharge the battery. If it can be recharged 7k to 50k cycles and a fully charged battery will take you 7x as far as a current lithium ion battery but it takes a week to fully recharge the battery then it will last a really long time but you will need two batteries so you can replace the one in service when it has to recharge. Tesla says their new batteries will go 400 miles on a charge so 400*7= 2800 miles. If you drive 28 miles a day you need to recharge every 100 days or 4 to 5 times a year.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

The cycle length can be whatever you want. If you're dealing with a car, You'd probably size the battery so that a cycle was around 300-400 miles. This would be around 100 kWh, which could be recharged to 80% in about 20-25 minutes using a DC fast charger like Tesla's newest Superchargers.

[@101perspective]

Cool. However, you hear about new battery tech all the time. You never see it show up on the shelves though.

[@acmefixer1]

Said, "you never see [new battery technology] on the shelves.." Not true. They're selling graphene batteries.

[@ElijahPerrin80]

Well done

[@curtdenson2360]

more stupid leftist dribble

[@zachfox7771]

makes sense as plants use co2 to store sun energy

[@raw238]

If this was Satire, its ok but if not read below They use it to make grow and live by making food inside their body. They do not store it as u think

[@youxkio]

Yes, I believe these new LiC batteries can beat those Li-ion batteries but the problem is still the number of recharges. 500 recharges are still tool little in the life of any electric/electronic apparel.

[@MrEddiekessler]

Wow there is hope, if it's not too late

[@frederickwise5238]

About batteries getting smaller and better Id like to mention 2 things. Who remembers the days of the 1st 8086 computers and how fast they booted up. And some wag noted that the faster computers get the longer it takes for them to boot up, due to "more stuff" being loaded during booting.. Another wag has likewise noted that the more efficient and smaller laptop; batteries have become the "more stuff" the industry puts in them to demand more power and use up that battery faster. LOLOL

[@dewpanic]

Wow, the future does not seem so gloomy for the next generation(s). Human brains are AWESOME!!!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Not a sliver bullet just yet though...still alot more we need to do :-)

[@redvelvet727]

Reminds me of trees. They carbon capture. While generating oxygen. At room temperature as well. Maybe we can increase tree's number of cycles.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Agreed Mark. We've got a video coming up in the schedule about afforestation, reforestation, and regenerative tree planting. Watch this space...

[@abyssmanur3965]

Grow hemp!

[@johnswolter]

This article needs a current update...

[@colinmackie5211]

Extracting CO2 is a good thing but when scaled up we end up with huge amounts of CO2 with no equivalent sized application. This tech needs to go the next step and release the O2 from the C. How does this tech compare to simply plant ing 🌲 that convert CO2 to wood and also stabilise the local environment through their transpiration of water. This seems like good tech but could also distract from practical solutions

[@MiniLuv-1984]

Yes agreed and these developments will take a long time to commercialise and scale to the point of making a difference. We already have the technology - plants and their supporting environment...we just need to stop cutting them down and start regenerating forests.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

There's no reason we can't do both trees and CO2 sequestration. It's not an either/or thing.

[@MiniLuv-1984]

@@incognitotorpedo42 That's right. If we do these two things and perhaps a few others concurrently, we may have a fighting chance.

[@lawrencebarrett4997]

I don't think these batteries are attempting to sequester CO2. They are just using it to store lithium and then releasing it when they are done. The advantage for climate change is that better batteries make renewable and nuclear fuels more attractive.

[@andersandersson9442]

Production is what we do. Cookies, cars, phones and so on, batteries is not such a big deal. There will be new ideas and improvements every year. That’s the way everything works ICE have made great progress but now it’s time for BEV’s to take over. Oil is just another product that we consume and transport around the world. Battwill replace oil and less shipping is needed. Money transfers to countries that don’t respect human rights and that abuse our trust will not get feed any more.

[@GiesbertNijhuis]

Turn carbon into diamond. Easy to store, and we can build strong long lasting stuff with it.

[@482jpsquared]

It takes a lot of energy to convert carbon to diamond, which in turn will generate more CO2 unless we use renewables to do to.

[@jeffbransky6499]

I wonder what temperature range the carbon dioxide battery can operate in. Room temperature is a narrow band compared to the extremes EVs must operate in.

[@infopackrat]

If we're doing CO2 capture. Why are greenhouses burning something to get their CO2? This should be one of the markets for the CO2 captured. Use it to grow food.

[@shdwbnndbyyt]

Since the world's atmospheric cabon dioxide level was close to the lower limit for sustaining plant life at the end of the last ice age (150 to 220 ppm depending on the plant), and at the current level of about 400 ppm still has not reached the average level of most of the world's past (varying from 1000 to 5000 ppm per the ice and geological records), I really do not think that reducing the CO2 levels is wise.

[@nallemanstankarochfunderin5962]

But nature has already provided us with a great way to capture carbon dioxide, through just planting trees. And the biggest benefit there is that thay get better and better at it the older and larger they get.

[@RussCR5187]

Yes. I vote for "all of the above" until we get back down to the natural background level of CO2.

[@RikkerdHZ]

That in combination with algae to create biofuel.

[@MrBobWareham]

Just need to lower sea level now so how about a saltwater battery