navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sugar-powered biobattery has 10 times the energy storage of lithium  (Read 2982 times)
daserra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



« on: January 24, 2014, 10:18:02 PM »

From the article;

Now, researchers at Virginia Tech have successfully created a sugar-powered fuel cell that has an energy storage density of 596 amp-hours per kilo — or “one order of magnitude” higher than lithium-ion batteries. This fuel cell is refillable with a solution of maltodextrin, and its only by products are electricity and water

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175137-sugar-powered-biobattery-has-10-times-the-energy-storage-of-lithium-your-smartphone-might-soon-run-on-enzymes
Logged

Rammed earth/ytong PassivFrankenHaus.
In the hills in Southern Portugal.
Borehole, on-grid.
Home made pool solar.
mespilus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1393


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2014, 10:25:32 PM »

Unfortunately the maltodextrin also contains carbon,
which has to go somewhere.

Certain it doesn't end up as CO2?

Logged

Now in the HS2 blight zone
biff
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12065


An unpaid Navitron volunteer who lives off-grid.


« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2014, 10:25:54 PM »

I am really looking forward to a breakthrough in off-grid batts,
                                        I have 2 ton of battery bank that is old and tired.It does its job well but dont hold the juice like it used to do.
  Someday soon,They will come up with a solution(He he nice pun) that will enable renewable energy to take a giant leap forward.(I hope)
                                                                                         Biff
Logged

An unpaid Navitron volunteer,who has been living off-grid,powered by wind and solar,each year better than the last one.
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2212

South West London


« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2014, 10:34:51 PM »

Unfortunately the maltodextrin also contains carbon,
which has to go somewhere.

Certain it doesn't end up as CO2?



But at least the carbon has come from a grown food source rather than a fossil fuel. What is not clear is how the energy output compairs to the output if the suger was used in some other way , such as ethanol fuel production.
Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
daserra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2014, 11:30:24 PM »

Is it just me or is it possible that beer could be a waste product from this process  stir
Logged

Rammed earth/ytong PassivFrankenHaus.
In the hills in Southern Portugal.
Borehole, on-grid.
Home made pool solar.
marcus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389


« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2014, 11:41:16 PM »

Sounds too good to be true - but if it's viable: roll on the next generation electric cars.
Logged
guydewdney
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320



« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2014, 07:47:19 AM »

Doesnt give energy per volume, lithium is very dense indeed, sugar isnt

"produces electricity and water" um, so does lead acid, ok, as hydrogen and oxygen.

Unfortunatly contains carbon? Yeah, so does a pencil, gonna stop using pencils?
Logged

Pic of wheel on day 1
7.2kW Waterwheel and 9.8kW PV
Countrypaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632


« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2014, 10:34:34 AM »

This doesn't appear to me to be a battery at all, its just a way of burning sugar in a fuel cell. What seems to be new is that it can convert sugar and generate electricity + water +CO2 (I assume since it is very vague). Instead of topping it up with electricity to recharge it, you have to top it up with more sugar, just like putting in more petrol to an ICE - no way to regenerate the sugar. Comparing it to Li batteries when it does an entirely different job is very misleading

Seems very confused reporting.
Logged
rt29781
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1247


« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2014, 12:53:18 PM »

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140121/ncomms4026/fig_tab/ncomms4026_F2.html

This indicates that the cyclic sugar is turned into an open chain poly hydric alcohol with a release of energy. So no CO2 released.  I am assuming that the reaction is reversed on charging.
Logged

Nowt currently, Aberdeen.....well actually very well insulated extension with passive solar that seems to heat the house....
Countrypaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632


« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2014, 01:59:55 PM »

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140121/ncomms4026/fig_tab/ncomms4026_F2.html

This indicates that the cyclic sugar is turned into an open chain poly hydric alcohol with a release of energy. So no CO2 released.  I am assuming that the reaction is reversed on charging.

That paper both when in the abstract and when comparing energy densities puts it in the EFC category not the battery category. The diagram on Figure 2 appears to show that 6CO2 are produced along with using 6O2. No indication anywhere I can see that the process is reversible using electricity.
Logged
oliver90owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2156


« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2014, 02:15:06 PM »

We really must read carefully.  A battery is not a single cell; there are primary and secondary cells; there are cells or batteries which might be applicable to running a watch or, even a mobile phone, which may not be appropriate for renewable energy applications.  Don't hold your breath on this one, so far, if you are wanting umpteen kW charge/discharge cycles.

It does say fuel cell at about line 2.

RAB
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 02:17:31 PM by oliver90owner » Logged
rt29781
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1247


« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2014, 04:19:31 PM »


That paper both when in the abstract and when comparing energy densities puts it in the EFC category not the battery category. The diagram on Figure 2 appears to show that 6CO2 are produced along with using 6O2. No indication anywhere I can see that the process is reversible using electricity.

I found the elimination of CO2 to give ru5P but then it appears to loop back up to give 5g6p which then goes to 6g6p (and/or 6g1p) so I am assuming at this point that the CO2 is reused?  I am presuming the anode side does not release the CO2.  So what I think is happening is that a 6 chain compound goes to a 5 chain compound but that is reversible back to a 6 chain compound so no overall loss of carbon.  That is just my reading of the diagram.  Start off at the top with a cyclic 6 carbon compound then cleave the ring then cleave CO2 and then reinsert the CO2.  I presumed the reversal needed energy?
Logged

Nowt currently, Aberdeen.....well actually very well insulated extension with passive solar that seems to heat the house....
Countrypaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632


« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2014, 06:00:38 PM »

[I found the elimination of CO2 to give ru5P but then it appears to loop back up to give 5g6p which then goes to 6g6p (and/or 6g1p) so I am assuming at this point that the CO2 is reused?  I am presuming the anode side does not release the CO2.  So what I think is happening is that a 6 chain compound goes to a 5 chain compound but that is reversible back to a 6 chain compound so no overall loss of carbon.  That is just my reading of the diagram.  Start off at the top with a cyclic 6 carbon compound then cleave the ring then cleave CO2 and then reinsert the CO2.  I presumed the reversal needed energy?

My interpretation was that the green boxes were inputs and the red outputs.I thought that the 6 x ru5p gives rise to only 5 x g6p that is a whole molecule of g6p has been lost in the process if you like, plus the 1 x Pi which is reused to makethe g1p.  Not the clearest of diagrams is it?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!