So techcrunch still runs one sided articles about companies that are basically glorified advertisements. They haven't changed after all these years.<p>They did not dwell on the biggest difference between aluminum air and lithium batteries -- that the aluminum air ones are not actually rechargable. Whenever you run out of batteries you have to send each used battery back to the factory to be re-manufactured and get a new one.<p>If you want to really compare these to lithium batteries, then you should compare the energy needed to re-manufacture a new aluminum air battery compared to the energy needed to merely recharge a lithium battery. I bet that the al-air battery will end up at least ten times more energy intensive. (Manufacturing aluminum is a very energy intensive process). And of course you also have to worry about shipping heavy batteries back and forth between the factory and multiple recharge centers. Whereas with lithium ion you are only "shipping" electrons over wires.<p>Relying on single use battery for ordinary transportation is just crazy extravagance.
> Without having to charge the battery, a car could simply swap the battery out in second, completely removing ‘charge time’... Meanwhile, Hydrogen Fuel Cells would require a huge and expensive Hydrogen distribution infrastructure and a new Hydrogen generation system.<p>This is cool, but the above argument that battery a swap out system being much significant of a hurdle that developing an H2 infrastructure doesn't make sense. For a battery swap out, you need not only the infrastructure to deliver fresh batteries to points of use/sale, you also need to infrastrucutre to return the batteries to the recycling station, and the recycling station infrastructure itself.<p>H2 fuel infrastructure simply requires H2 liberation from a water source and delivery to fueling statuons. Fuel cells exhaust water. Now, the H2 fuel cells themselves and their platinum-based membranes are another hurdle, but that's not the argument the author made. This author (and others) need do a more complete cost-benefit assessment.
Way back in 1997 the German Post Office did a big trial with Zinc-air batteries in delivery vans <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420863-500-germany-greens-its-postal-vans/" rel="nofollow">https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420863-500-germany-...</a><p>Zinc-air only gets you around 180 Wh/Kg, while Aluminium-air manages around 1300 Wh/Kg.<p>If the article is correct that Trevor Jackson has solved practical problems with the electrolyte, then it is time to dig out the results from the old German Post Office trial. Why did it go nowhere? If the main problem was simply that Zinc-air batteries were too heavy, then a practical Aluminium-air battery is a big step forward. If on the other hand the problems were to do with swapping and re-smelting, then Aluminium-air might be solving the wrong problem.
Having a good aluminum-air battery would be fantastic, even if it was non-rechargeable. It makes no sense to replace the existing battery pack in BEVs, but they could be used for range extension when going on road trips.<p>I'd be really curious to know how many kWh you could pack in a hand-swappable unit like Gogoros batteries. Make two slots in the bottom of the trunk (in a way that it can be used for storage when you don't have batteries in there). When you go on a long trip, just go to a station, pick up two batteries, and drop them off at your destination.<p>The problem is, considering that this is the main use case, it's not a technology with a huge market potential like lithium-ion. It's nice-to-have, but not essential.<p>Could also make sense for electric air planes or boats.<p>"The technology development has peaked and unlike aluminum, lithium is not recyclable"<p>This is just false. Solid state lithium-ion batteries are arguably more mature than aluminum-air, which is a huge step forward. Lithium is also recyclable. That process is not as mature as the process for making aluminum, but I'm guessing there's a bit more to scaling up the recycling of these batteries than just handing over the spent cell to an aluminum smelter.
Assuming the technology is as described and I don’t know enough to comment on that, it doesn’t surprise me, the British government is terrible at exploiting technology that is come up with inside the UK.<p>Another example is the SABRE folks, honestly innovation in this country is “men in sheds” relies refusing to take no for an answer.
If it is not possible to manufacture those cells on site, at home or at charging/swapping station he should probably give up.
But entropy... more energy you pack, more it wants to get out.<p>if you can pack 10x more energy in the same size as lithium cells and they wont explode on damage, maybe there will be some benefit to making whole delivery network for aluminum cells
Is there a reason to not use a combination of battery types in an EV? Have a smaller rechargeable lithium battery for daily commutes and regenerative breakes. Have a space/socket for a larger single-use aluminum battery for when you need the extra range.<p>Assuming these things are stable enough, it really would not be hard for gas stations to keep a couple of these on a shelf. The hardest part would be scheduling the pickups for recycling.
The battery's "only waste product is aluminum hydroxide..."<p>Producing Al(OH)3 is an intermediate step in the Bayer process (used worldwide) to convert bauxite to Al2O3 - a process which requires a lot of energy and produces a lot of (dangerous) waste.<p>So there may be potential there for this battery's 'waste' to actually save -more- energy.
There's got to be a catch. If the technology is so much better, why is it so shunned? I have great trouble believing that Big Lithium would really be preventing it's use given that aluminium is abundant everywhere.
Much simpler would be join the scooter scheme of ~swappable rechargeable batteries ... a ready made standard that could then work for any vehicle up to a car<p>By forcing ownership of batteries outside of consumers effective recycling could be much more effective too. Right now there is a huge cost, almost a planned obsolescence, when a EV's battery degrades ... as is inevitable with current tech.<p>~swappable<p><a href="https://electrek.co/2019/06/10/yamaha-ec-05-electric-scooter-gogoro-batteries" rel="nofollow">https://electrek.co/2019/06/10/yamaha-ec-05-electric-scooter...</a>
Not sure I understand why this guy keeps turning to governments for funding instead of the private sector.<p>Is there some sort of regulatory hurdle he's trying to overcome?
Sounds useful as an emergency power backup — where you could simply store lots of Al rods and worry about returning the oxide byproduct only after power has been restored. This system has a dramatically higher energy density per cost and volume than any secondary batteries, which makes up for any loss of energy in refining Al
Corrosion and self discharge are the big problems for metal - air batteries.<p>They typically self discharge in less than a month once they are activated.<p><a href="https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/120466" rel="nofollow">https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/120466</a>
Being non rechargeable I wonder if these batteries could be used for things like watch/remote control/torch/etc batteries since the typical ones you buy are also non rechargeable and I imagine not very environmentally friendly.
It really reads like an inventor story in Europe. The German who invented Lithium Ion batteries also run across the country and nobody was interested until Sony came along and needed something for their walkman...so the story goes...
There is still a lot more bribe money in blocking new tech than in advancing it.<p>Everything that effectively brings the end of the Fossil Economy closer hits roadblocks in government. Anything ineffective has it easier, so dominates funding.