Zinc-air batteries are cheap, have a high energy density, and last for a very long time. Their use of a water-based electrolyte makes them safer than other batteries, so they're often found in medical applications, such as hearing aids and heart monitoring devices.
The battery's negative electrode contains zinc metal, which gives up electrons when it reacts with hydroxide ions in the electrolyte . Those electrons generate a current as they flow to the positive electrode, where they react with oxygen from the air to produce more hydroxide ions.
The sluggishness of the reaction with oxygen limits the battery's voltage output and its performance at high current. Finding a catalyst to speed up the reaction could yield higher power and energy densities, opening a wider range of potential applications.
Yun Zong and Zhaolin Liu of the A*STAR Institute of Materials Research and Engineering and colleagues have developed a nanoparticle catalyst that could fit the bill. The particles are 20-50 nanometers across, with a cobalt core encased by an inner shell of cobalt oxide, which is surrounded by an outer shell of pyrolyzed polydopamine (PPD), a form of carbon 'dotted' with nitrogen atoms. These nanoparticles are coated on a porous carbon support that acts as an electrode. Their structure helps to prevent them from leaching cobalt or clumping together, and the protective outer shell also makes the nanoparticles more durable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:35AM
I'm all in favour of the research, but it seems to me that there are announcements of discoveries that are claimed will 'revolutionise' battery power every few months or so, but very few actually seem to make it to market.
I'm not sure why this should be. Whether they are possible but uneconomic, or whether we simply refuse to change, I do not know. Perhaps it is the latter. I recall over the last 5 years or so the push to adopt 'better' lightbulbs with promises of less power consumption and longer life.
The power issue seems to be true but the longer life is most certainly not. I have several lightbulbs that haven't lasted more than 12 months before they have had to be replaced. Now, bearing in mind that the bulbs cost much more than the old incandescent variety (by a factor of 5 - 10 times) they are certainly not saving me money in real terms. My local shop will exchange bulbs that have lasted less than the projected life - but only if I produce the receipt obtained at the time of purchase. Am I really expected to keep every receipt for up to 3 years just so that I can replace a bulb that doesn't live up to the marketing claims?
So, with regard to batteries, I will get more excited when I see a new, more efficient battery on sale at a reasonable price and when I am not expected to maintain records and evidence of when it was purchased.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:53AM
Battery technology stories are a tradition, there's no need for commercialization.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:51AM
Zinc air batteries are currently in use. This research may make them usable in different areas. They would still not be rechargeable so they would be a poor choice for a laptop.
Rechargeable zinc air batteries are also being researched, but I don't think that is what's going on here. They so far have very short cycle lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:39PM
I've had pretty good luck with CFLs. I started buying them way back before the recent big push that stirred up all the drama just because I wanted to lower my power bill. Are you using LEDs by chance? I keep reading things about LEDs that make them less and less attractive. They're more expensive than CFLs and most flicker at 120 hz (except the ones that cost a whole hell of a lot more than CFLs) yet it seemed that LEDs were what everybody was focused on. I don't really buy anything special for CFLs, just whatever cheap brand the grocery or Lowe's has, and they tend to last me at least 5 years, some going on 10. Maybe twice as expensive per bulb as incandescent, and incandescents seem to pop on me after only 6 months or so.
One thing I've noticed is that the incandescent equivalent rating on CFLs at least lies. I tend to go for one size up. If I'm replacing a 75 watt incandescent, I'll buy a 100 watt replacement. I think those are 21 watts actual.
I've been thinking that so many people hate CFLs at least for the same reason people become convinced I'm a vegan when they catch me making a garden burger. Don't try to imitate something it's not! I'm not buying a 1:1 replacement 100 watt bulb! I'm buying a 21 watt bulb with a bit cooler light spectrum! I'm not buying imitation meat! I'm buying a bunch of tofu, other beans, and ostensibly some other veggies mooshed together into a delicious burger because I like how that tastes just as much as I like bison burgers!
Maybe if we just round up everybody in marketing, advertising, and PR and just shoot them we could have nice things. :)
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:46PM
Don't try to imitate something it's not! I'm not buying a 1:1 replacement 100 watt bulb! I'm buying a 21 watt bulb with a bit cooler light spectrum!
Whether for aesthetic reasons or because it keeps them awake too late, not everyone wants a higher colour temperature (bluish light).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder [wikipedia.org]
Obviously when you're retrofitting a fluorescent lamp into a fixture that was designed for an incandescent one, similar size and shape of the bulb, and similar angular distribution of the light make an acceptable result most likely.