spinofflive
a green circuit board/computer guts with a battery being placed inside. this description is being written by soumeone who could know tell you what a graphics card is even if you put them at gunpoint, so it is not very helpful
Deep sea mining could extract resources used in electronics (Photo: Getty Images).

ScienceMarch 9, 2019

Building batteries that go beyond lithium

a green circuit board/computer guts with a battery being placed inside. this description is being written by soumeone who could know tell you what a graphics card is even if you put them at gunpoint, so it is not very helpful
Deep sea mining could extract resources used in electronics (Photo: Getty Images).

New Zealand researchers are developing alternative batteries from common material to go beyond lithium, skipping the solar cell and downsizing monster redox-flows. 

In today’s tech-hungry world, lithium batteries are ubiquitous. Everything from your mobile phone to the neighbour’s electric car rely on the metal, and it’s easy to see why. Lithium-ion batteries pack a serious punch, storing more energy than any other battery of equivalent size, and delivering power to where it’s needed, quickly and efficiently.

But did you know that they’re hardly ever recycled? The complexity and high cost of recovering materials from lithium-ion batteries means that, in the EU, 95% of them are either incinerated at their end-of-life, or end up in landfill. And Australian consumers recycle just 2% of the lithium-ion batteries they buy. It’s not as if the raw materials needed to make them – namely lithium and cobalt – are easy to find. Thanks to an ever-growing demand, pressure on their supplies have never been higher, and that’s before we consider the significant environmental impact of metal mining. Extracting one tonne of lithium requires more than two thousand tonnes of water, and a study of soil samples in a cobalt-mining region of southern Congo concluded that it was “among the ten most polluted areas in the world.”

It’s clear that something has to change. For MacDiarmid Institute‘s former director, Professor Thomas Nann, that ‘something’ is battery chemistry, and his solution is a very familiar metal – aluminium.

“Aluminium is similar to lithium in a key way – aluminium’s potential energy density (a measure of how much energy a material can store) is very, very close to lithium’s. But unlike lithium, aluminium is the third most abundant element in the Earth’s crust,” he says. Nann and his team took that as a starting point and set out to design a new aluminium-ion battery.

They wanted to stick with a familiar battery design – namely, two electrodes separated by an electrolyte – but everything else was up for grabs. Their first target was the electrolyte material itself which, because it carries the ions that make the battery work, can have a big impact on its performance. The best battery electrolytes are usually made from an expensive cocktail of compounds, so in search of a cheaper alternative, Nann and MacDiarmid-funded PhD student, Nicolò Canever looked to those already working with aluminium.

“It turns out that the mining industry was already studying a compound called acetamide, used to recover aluminium from minerals,” Nann explains, “and because acetamide can be produced by bacteria or plants, it is incredibly inexpensive.” That formed the basis of their new electrolyte, and in performance tests, it compared favourably to existing compounds but could be made for a fraction of the cost.

This work was published in a prestigious Royal Society of Chemistry journal in September, but the team’s design of a new electrode material took a different route. Nann’s PhD student, Shalini Divya had a challenge on her hands – rather than simply improving on what had gone before, her aim was to start from scratch, and rethink what she knew about electrodes. “In the end, Shalini found a material that outperforms everything that’s been published to date,” says Nann, “It is so transformative and so surprising that we’re now trying to commercialise it.”

A key step in the patenting process is to prove that lab-produced batteries could also be manufactured on commercial equipment, but that capability doesn’t yet exist here in New Zealand. So, funded by MacDiarmid, Nann and Divya travelled to Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute. There, they used the lab’s world-class facilities to make 20 of their novel aluminium-ion batteries and brought them back to New Zealand for testing. The results have been hugely promising, with Nann saying that they’re now “approaching the performance of lithium-ion batteries already on the market.” Best of all, their batteries could be produced with only very minor changes to existing processes “which is a key consideration for potential investors and manufacturers.”

Nann (who is now based at University of Newcastle, Australia) says the need for sustainable energy storage has never been more urgent. “As we transform into an energy landscape dominated by renewables, the problem is not getting hold of energy – after all, if we covered 250 by 250km2 of the Australian outback in commercial solar panels, we’d generate all the energy our entire planet needs,” he explains. “This isn’t as much area as it initially seems – rows of solar panels alongside existing highways could make a big impact.”

Can we skip the solar cell altogether, though?

Doctor Aaron Marshall.

Another battery project connects Nann with MacDiarmid researchers at the University of Canterbury. One of the collaborators, Dr Aaron Marshall says the project is funded under MBIE Smart Ideas, and involves looking at new smart materials that can convert sunlight directly into stored battery energy, without needing to making electricity in the process (i.e. skipping the whole solar cell creation of electricity step).

“We’re trying to find a material which absorbs the sunlight and catalyses the charging reaction directly inside the battery.”

Marshall and his MacDiarmid collaborators are also working to speed up (and shrink) redox flow batteries. In a redox flow battery, the ‘energy’ is stored in chemicals which sit in (usually big) tanks separate to the battery itself.   When energy is needed, the chemicals are pumped through the battery and through the porous electrodes.

“The concept is a bit like filling your car’s fuel tank with petrol – you could then leave the car for a year and it would still have a full tank of gas and be ready to drive when you needed it.”

And he says the chemicals are relatively abundant and therefore relatively cheap over the lifetime of the battery.

But the batteries are currently slow.

“Slow reactions means the battery requires big electrodes. And if the electrodes are large, the rest of the battery has to be large as well, and the whole thing ends up being expensive.”

So he’s hoping to coat the electrodes with new materials to speed up the reaction – so they can reduce the size of the electrodes.

“If we can improve the reaction rates by two-to-three times without losing efficiency, these new electrodes would make flow batteries very competitive.”

(This article has been adapted from its original publication in the MacDiarmid Institute’s annual report to reflect new information. Additional reporting was provided by Vanessa Young.)

This content was created in paid partnership with MacDiarmid Institute. Learn more about our partnerships here.

Keep going!
Sucharas Wongpeth/ Shutterstock.com
Sucharas Wongpeth/ Shutterstock.com

ScienceMarch 6, 2019

At last an answer to the greatest office debate of all: how cold to set the air-con

Sucharas Wongpeth/ Shutterstock.com
Sucharas Wongpeth/ Shutterstock.com

The ‘perfect’ office temperature? It’s a myth, write Fan Zhang of Griffith University, Peter Hancock of the University of Central Florida and Richard de Dear of the University of Sydney

It might be blisteringly hot outside, but if you work in an office building, the chances are it’s always reassuringly cool (or cold, depending on your preference) once you walk inside.

In Australia and much of the rest of the world, it’s become standard practice for offices to be cooled or heated to a uniform 22℃. In many Australian offices, this temperature is even officially enshrined in commercial tenancy agreements.

And yet temperature is routinely one of the sore points of office politics – many office workers constantly feel too hot or cold at work. Of course, that might simply be because the air conditioning doesn’t work very well where you work. But it’s also reasonable to ask whether 22℃ is really such a magic number after all.

Our review of the available research, published recently in the journal Applied Energy, suggests not.

The air conditioning industries certainly view 22℃ as the magic number, judging by guidelines published by the European and US industry peak bodies. Both claim that office workers’ cognitive performance at different temperatures follows an “inverted U” shaped curve, which peaks at 22℃.

Inverted-U function between temperature and cognitive performance.

 

This explains why 22℃ has prevailed as the chosen figure all over the world, regardless of how much it might cost to heat or cool work spaces to that temperature in different climates. In the heat of an Australian summer this typically involves lots of cooling, but the view is that the prodigious output of comfortably cool workers more than justifies the electricity bill.

But are things really as simple as the graph above would have us believe? To answer that question, we critically reviewed almost 300 studies from a wide range of disciplines including physiology, psychology, ergonomics, neuroscience, sports science, human-technology interaction, and more.

We concluded that the relationship between temperature and performance is not an “inverted U” but rather an “extended U”. The evidence in fact suggests that human performance remains relatively stable across a broad range of acceptable temperatures, but then rapidly deteriorates once it gets any hotter or colder than this. The boundaries of the acceptable ranges depend on a lot of factors, such as the type of task you are doing, how demanding the task is, how adverse the temperature is, how skilled and motivated you are in doing your task, to name just a few. Our previous research found that workers perform just the same at 25℃, for instance.

This is because humans are not just simple, passive machines. We can adapt in all sorts of ways to moderate levels of thermal stress. Common ways of adaptation include behavioural adjustment, physiological acclimatisation, psychological habituation, and probably most important of all, expectation adjustment.

So it turns out that our brains can still be at their sharpest even if it’s not exactly 22℃. But that’s not the only reason why the magic temperature is a myth. The existing rationale conflates “cognitive performance” with “office productivity”, when in reality these are two very different things.

“Performance” is a person’s ability to produce “goal-directed activity”. In performance science, a job or task is often broken down into different performance components, such as memory, concentration, logical thinking, executive function and so on. “Productivity” is the extent to which an organisation is progressing towards its systemic goals, whether that be the amount of products they sell in a year, or the number of customers served within a specific period of time and how satisfied those customers are with the quality of service they received.

But there is no standard way to quantify office productivity. The common practice is to use performance measures as a proxy for overall productivity, but this is problematic for several reasons.

The first is that simulated performance tasks do not accurately represent the nature of real work carried out in actual workplaces. Standard cognitive tasks testing your memory, concentration and vigilance performance might not faithfully capture your ability to generate useful contribution towards achieving your company’s goals.

Second, productivity can also depend on many factors besides workers’ ability to perform. These might include workplace culture, organisational structure, job security and satisfaction, workload, management style, and personal factors such as injury, loss of sleep, life events, health and well-being, or financial stress. Distracted, disgruntled or worried workers aren’t going to be very productive, regardless of what the office temperature will be.

There are practical implications to this. Office managers might be wasting money chasing the “best” temperature for maximum productivity while ignoring other factors that have a much larger bearing on it.

An air-conditioning setpoint which is closer to the outdoor weather, aided by Personal Comfort Systems (like a desk fan, or contact cooling/heating device) may save energy bills while maintaining high levels of workplace satisfaction and mental performance.The Conversation


Fan Zhang, Lecturer in Architectural Science, Griffith University; Peter Hancock, Professor of Psychology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, and Richard de Dear, Director, Indoor Environmental Quality Laboratory, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.