Green energy ???

snochuk said:

What efficient system is used to charge the lithium ion and what is that real carbon footprint?? lol
Have never seen a REAL energy transfer system that is efficient when you dig out the REAL truth.

Click to expand...

ZRrrr said:

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/

Problem I see...there is no other power company, oil company or mining company that wants to see any low cost, high output, readily accessible energy system. They have tons of money, high priced lawyers and numerous governments in their pockets. It's an uphill battle....ask Elon! As much as I am very intrigued by this energy source above, and what it can also do for nuclear waste, there are many who will try and make it go bye, bye I am sure.

Click to expand...

ZRrrr said:

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/

Problem I see...there is no other power company, oil company or mining company that wants to see any low cost, high output, readily accessible energy system. They have tons of money, high priced lawyers and numerous governments in their pockets. It's an uphill battle....ask Elon! As much as I am very intrigued by this energy source above, and what it can also do for nuclear waste, there are many who will try and make it go bye, bye I am sure.

Click to expand...

ABMax24 said:

Yeah unfortunately the energy density just isn't there. Might work good for something like a pacemaker battery but that's about it. It's energy density isn't there to compete with lithium ion, never mind attempt to replace it.
.

Click to expand...

Cdnfireman said:

Another pie in the sky green energy system that is doomed to failure based on the reality of physics.
.

Click to expand...

Brownstar said:

Says in the article that it is more energy dense than lithium Ion.




Why do you say that?

Click to expand...

Brownstar said:

Says in the article that it is more energy dense than lithium Ion.

Click to expand...

Cdnfireman said:

Any energy conversion device has to follow the laws of physics. Energy output plus conversion/generation losses have to equal energy input. Any miracle energy source has to follow that rule. If it can’t be demonstrated that it does this, it won’t work. The reason fossil fuels are so prevalent is because their energy density per unit volume is enormous, and we have become used to their convenience. Unless and until a “green” energy source is developed that duplicates the abilities of fossil fuels, it will never gain mainstream acceptance.

Click to expand...

ABMax24 said:

It does say that, what it doesn't point out is that's over its 28,000 year life. It outputs a consistently small amount of energy for an extremely long time, a carbon-14 battery the size of a Tesla car battery would put out roughly 400 watts, not even enough to run the heated seats. But it would put out 400 watts for thousands of years, making it more energy dense, but not having the high specific output required to be useful in most modern technology. But it's really not a battery anyway, it's more like a miniature nuclear reactor or fuel cell.

Now if you could make a hybrid Carbon-14/lithium ion battery in which the lithium ion battery powered the car and the carbon-14 reactor cell constantly charged the Li-ion battery you could have a car that would charge itself. That would be as close to a perpetual motion machine as you could get.

Click to expand...

Brownstar said:

Ok thanks missed that part.

Click to expand...

Brownstar said:

Im not an expert, but take burning wood for an example gives you 20mj/kg of wood. burning gasoline 46mj/kg.

With nuclear fission uranium 235 has an energy density of 39000000mj/kg.

I honestly only read the article, so not saying its newest best thing. But do you think its possible there is more energy sources out there beyond a 9th graders understanding of physics?

Click to expand...

Cdnfireman said:

Regardless of the energy density Or type of the materials, the basic rules of physics apply. Over the years there’s been a multitude of these miracle energy sources. And without exception, if they didn’t meet the fundamental laws of physics as we currently understand them, they Failed miserably. If someone in the future discovers new areas of physics that change our current understanding and results in miraculous new sources of energy, perfect.
But until then, our current understanding, and rules, of physics apply. Be they ninth grade or PhD, they’re the same.

Click to expand...

ABMax24 said:

The problem really isn't with physics or our understanding of it. It's our applications of our understanding of physics that is the problem.

Take nuclear fusion for example, we've known for decades that elements can be fused together to make new heavier elements and release enormous amounts of energy. In 1952 the US detonated the first hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Yet here we are in 2020 almost 70 years later still researching ways to fuse hydrogen in a controlled and efficient manner for use in electricity generation.

Click to expand...

Brownstar said:

70 years isnt that long. We are Nuclear newbs at best.

Click to expand...

ABMax24 said:

Agreed. But look how far we have come with everything else, computers, engines, airplanes, etc. Nuclear fusion tech is just so much more complicated, it's pretty hard to build a vessel to contain a reaction at millions of degrees and hundreds of atmospheres of pressure when every material we have available melts at temperatures below 5000 degrees.

Click to expand...