Liquid Metal Batteries

That link is an hour lecture. Sorry but I don't have the time to sit through that. The Wikipedia page on molten salt batteries has a paragraph on liquid metal batteries.

With a temperature requirement of 410°C, I can see many complications that might make this impractical if not a useless power waste.

With a temperature requirement of 410°C, I can see many complications that might make this impractical if not a useless power waste.

My laptop runs hot sometimes, but not that hot!

Sooo, for those of us on this side of the pond, 770°F? I'd say that is impractical. And I think one of the problems we are facing with much of the tech advance in society today, regardless of the country/society it is found useful for, is that, since it IS impractical at the small-holding/small-farm/small-business level, for any widespread practical usage, the fees, profits, taxes (due to government involvement) and assorted other non-producing cost add-ons raise the product beyond even the consideration of most of us.

Please do not misunderstand. I fully understand that development costs must be returned, and a reasonable profit is not only earned, but deserved, as NOT allowing for these things is the surest way to stifle tech creativity. But when we focus on tech that clearly is NOT in the realm of useful to/usable by the NON-Mega-Funded majority of available consumers, we are handicapping the tech development stream in a huge way. Some of you have recently contributed to a stream on recycling and it's future. I would say that, except for the power generation by arc-combustion (which, if I remember some early articles I read, is STILL the most promising conversion tech, both for minimizing downstream waste product such as ash and released chemicals, AND for efficient conversion and reduction of a waste product) most recycling processes suffer this same problem, i.e., if it doesn't return a HUGE investment, it can only be paid for by enactment of legislation FORCING its use by a consumer base the can't afford to use it.

I would much rather see our tech-development revenue stream being used to develop systems/processes which will reduce the cost to the user of both disposing of waste products, and providing the incentive of, for example, lowering other living costs.

And to avoid the obvious questions, I re-use all the plastic I can't avoid using in the first place, in as many ways/incarnations as possible, before final disposal. Rather than buy the materials my garden centers and other providers would prefer I spend my money on, I "grow my own" soil by composting everything available and biologically safe. I recycle everything I can afford to recycle when it hits end of life. But I still find that recycling is MUCH more expensive that either a)NOT using the recyclable material in the first place, or b)disposing of it in the nearby landfill (for which I'm already paying taxes, in support, anyway).

If we in the USA really want to see recycling work, we MUST move the processes down to where the small user can see a reason and at least a break-even on cost, to use them. I can't see that we are going to get there as long as the corporations which develop the processes do so under that idea that "If we can't convince the masses to pay us back to develop processes they don't see need for, we need to get laws enacted to FORCE them to pay us".

I, for one, will continue to refuse to use that kind of tech answer just because of the infringement on my economic freedom of choice.

And I don't understand why THAT (economic freedom of choice) doesn't resound across the very soul of a land founded on personal freedom of choice.

The link I provided is a very long video,but you can skip to the best parts,and the doctor gives very good reasons why this incarnation of liquid metal batteries is different.

Efficiency is very high even with the temperatures required.

Recharge cycles and retention of capacity over it's life is practically unchanged.

By providing economical storage for solar and wind,it opens the door for more competition,which the entrenched utilities do not want,and will fight.

By providing power during peak demand periods,it will reduce the size of the utilities equipment required.

But I don't expect the monopolies to go down easy.

Customers in Hawaii have to pay the grid to put their excess solar/wind power into the grid!

"They are using our distribution infrastructure to distribute their power" they cry.

Just who paid for all of that infrastructure?

The customer,that's who.

But they refuse to acknowledge that.

It is "Theirs".

They are fighting tooth and nail to suppress any competition.

Expect more dirty tricks and court cases by utilities as the battle rages on.

Someone once said:"A good judge is one that stays bought."

Well for large scale utility storage the figures are encouraging, but still too soon to tell how this will fare over the long term.... still is in its infancy, so we'll see how it goes....

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775317315641?via%3Dihub

What kind of battery is in our airplanes? Liquid or solid?

Yes.

I guess a liquid and a solid battery could be looked at that way, although in the quantum world nothing touches anyway.