# MIT Lithium-Air Battery Achieves New Record Efficiency



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Gold and platinum nanoparticle catalyst returns 77 percent of energy used to charge the battery.

More...


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

That is good news, IF they can get into production in less than 5 years.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

They won't. I love all the carbon nanotube stuff their talking about, but it sounds a little too much like fuel cells.....always 10 years off.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

In theory Lithium-air fuel cells or batteries have energy density measured in the thousands of wh/kg instead of hundreds. If they ever come up with something that works it could actually surpass the energy density of fossil fuel (not even counting the 80% loss in most ICE powered vehicles).

To call it a game changer is an understatement.

But now for the reality check. Platinum and gold will never be used in anything mainstream, or affordable. So this might be real, but as long as they use expensive materials like this nothing will ever come from it other than a few expensive prototypes. Almost better off making a micro nuclear reactor in terms of cost.

You have to start somewhere and this is encouraging, but I'm not holding my breath either.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

david85 said:


> Platinum and gold will never be used in anything mainstream, or affordable.


I thought every catalytic converter had platinum or some other expensive metal as catalyst. And those are in every car now. I bet 20 years ago when they were invented somone said the same thing you just did.

If all resources used to make CATs are diverted to make fuel cells or batteries, perhaps there can be a status quo, at least on some level.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Well there are two problems with that. First cats for what they do are ridiculously expensive; and two, the government mandated their usage on every car on the road.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> Well there are two problems with that. First cats for what they do are ridiculously expensive; and two, the government mandated their usage on every car on the road.


I am not defending cost of cats, nor do I know how truly efficient they are, but I can sure smell the difference when I follow a modern car vs. the one that clearly has no CAT in it. I literally can't breath when I follow some of the junkers our here. What is the price of your health?

If they weren't mandated, I bet cancer rate in cities would be higher than it is now. What is the price of people dying because other people chose to drive 5000LB SUV every day to carry one fat ass behind the wheel?

I don't mean to get off subject here, my point was that small quantities of precious metals, which in most cases can be effectively recycled will not stop mass production of great technology, as long as its truly great technology and not some lab gimmick.


----------

