Advertisement

Zibb

Margery Conner Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies. Follow Margery on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/margeryc.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Hand grenade or coffee thermos: Two very different models of a laptop battery

Jul 30 2008 11:26AM | Permalink |Comments (14) |


Take a look at these two quotes, both regarding the amount of energy stored in a laptop battery pack. The first is from a NY Times article about solar thermal energy generation:

“The idea is to capture the sun’s heat. Heat, unlike electric current, is something that industry knows how to store cost-effectively. For example, a coffee thermos and a laptop computer’s battery store about the same amount of energy, [bolding added] said John S. O’Donnell, executive vice president of a company in the solar thermal business, Ausra. The thermos costs about $5 and the laptop battery $150, he said, and “that’s why solar thermal is going to be the dominant form.”

The second is from the IEEE Spectrum article on Christina Lampe-Onnerud, the president of lithium ion battery vendor Boston Power: “She ruffled a few feathers … by pointing out in a talk that the energy density of lithium-ion batteries used for laptop computers, at 40 watt-hours per kilogram, was already getting uncomfortably close to that of your basic hand grenade. [bolding added] That density, the amount of energy stored in a certain mass, had been going up like a rocket as manufacturers competed fiercely for a growing market.”

So here we have two ways of looking at energy storage in a battery pack: One model is of a warm-and-fuzzy coffee thermos, while the other is of a nasty, violent hand grenade. How can both be accurate models of a laptop battery?

The two systems are using energy to do two very different things. The Ausra executive is pretty dismissive about our knowledge of how to store electrical energy, but it’s also much easier to store energy at a relatively low temperature. On the other hand, it’s hard to get any work out of low-temperature energy.  Plus, energy stored as heat can only be made to do work through a heat engine (you need a cold sink too), and you’re limited to the Carnot efficiency. A battery, on the other hand, stores energy chemically and isn’t limited by Carnot efficiency.  

The hand grenade analogy makes the point that this is an amount of energy that can be confined to your lap, and yet can be extremely destructive – especially when it’s in the sensitive environment of a lap rather than a battlefield.  The difference here is the rate at which energy is released. A grenade’s chemistry is such that the total amount of energy isn’t huge, it can do so much damage because of the rate at which it’s released. Under normal operating conditions, the laptop battery releases energy slowly. Practically speaking, a laptop battery isn’t going to go boom like a grenade because a grenade is designed to release its energy nearly instantaneously. So that analogy is a bit inaccurate also.

So, two very different models of one common energy storage device. We’re entering a time when there is no one-size-fits-all energy storage, and we will have to tailor our energy sources – and their storage – very carefully to their application in order to wring out the maximum efficiency, in a cost-effective way.

 


Related entries in: Power Sources/Controllers | 


Reader Comments



at 7/30/2008 2:10:58 PM, David said:
if you really want to get a message across like this design two auxillary laptop batteries, one shaped like a hand grenade and the other shaped like a thermos and see which one sells the best.



at 7/30/2008 2:56:55 PM, theBike said:
The hand grenade remark indicated a lack of something, I'm not sure what, but the remark was pretty dumb as well as pointless.
As for low temperature, Ausr'a thermal fluids won't have what I would characterize as a "low temperature." Plain old steam, used everwhere to power generators, has a much lower temperature than Ausra's heat transfer fluid.
Ausra is accurate in claiming that battery technology is impractical for holding relatively large amounts of energy - grids have alway looked to stored reservoirs and hydroelectrics to store
electrical energy, although that requires mountainous terrain. As for "efficiency"
that concept is pretty much meaningless - we are concerned about cost of energy production, which may be (but often is not) correlated with "efficiency."
Energy in the non-fossil fuel
world is not limited - we won't ever require more than a tiny portion of the solar energy that lands within our
country. That;'s why conservation talk, as a permanent solution, is braindead. The world will always need more and more energy, and we can easily produce it.



at 7/30/2008 3:47:53 PM, JB said:
Ausra, the company, is very interested in promoting the idea of solar thermal. That is their bread and butter. They are correct in pointing out the difficulty in storing electrical energy. Their system is designed around using solar to run a turbine in a rather conventional way to generate electricity. But they must compete for investment dollars with others that are pursuing solar photovoltaic generation. So I don't criticize them for pointing out that solar thermal has certain advantages over solar PV. Still, it's obviously not the last word on the relative merits of storage - a laptop battery vs. a thermos bottle.





at 7/31/2008 5:32:03 AM, Bonkers said:
the extractable mechanical energy in a one-pint thermos is about 20% of whats in a laptop battery. the carnot limit to efficiency is (1-Tsource/Tsink) - and taking 370K and 300K its 19%. Otherwise they both store about 215 kJ.



at 7/31/2008 6:50:45 AM, Matthew Wright said:
Bonkers..

Except -- that the carnot efficiency is the same when directly making the electricity from teh solar thermal plant - so if you can store it in a 80-98% efficiet thermal store .. before converting it @ 20% to electricity.. then you have lost nothing much at all.

That is the point.. so bonkers for you not understanding Ausra's approach.





at 8/4/2008 2:49:44 PM, JB said:
Really, I think the advantage that Ausra should be emphasizing is that there is a huge cost difference between distributing PV panels across the countryside, versus distributing reflective surfaces (heliostats) across the countryside. The conversion efficiency of both is pretty comparable - I'll accept the 20% estimate for thermal, and I understand the PV panels are running in the low 20's. If Ausra can raise the temperature of their solar-thermal systems then they can improve efficiency even further. The article comparing thermos with a battery I believe was simply a metaphore that points out the thermal systems they propose have some storage built-in, whereas the PV systems have no storage at all. Given the storage capability of the "Grid", I think this is a weak argument. However there are more compelling arguments to be made when you look at cost comparisons.



at 8/5/2008 3:27:11 PM, JJ said:
Quote from theBike:
As for "efficiency" that concept is pretty much meaningless - we are concerned about cost of energy production, which may be (but often is not) correlated with "efficiency." Energy in the non-fossil fuel world is not limited - we won't ever require more than a tiny portion of the solar energy that lands within our country. That;'s why conservation talk, as a permanent solution, is braindead. The world will always need more and more energy, and we can easily produce it.

Are you serious?!?! Efficiency doesn't matter?? If efficiency doesn't matter than we will always be wasting energy. The better your efficiency the less you waste. And yes, Mr. Gore, we have all the energy we ever need coming from the sun, and we already use a lot of it. Everytime you eat you're using that energy. We can put solar arrays in lots of places, but you have to be careful. You start covering the planet with them and I guarantee you'll have the environmentalists complaining about them soon enough. Plants, bacteria, fungi and many forms of life will see a direct loss compared to the amount of energy they used to get before you put up all these solar panels, and so then will the rest of the food chain that thrives off them. And once upon a time someone said we will never require more than the fossil fuel energy that's in the ground, and politicians said if income tax ever got to 1/2 of one percent the American people would revolt... and both were wrong. Never assume we will always or never have or not have something.

Oh, and a thermos is NOTHING like a battery. Go "charge" your coffee someday and a NiMH battery (notorious for the worst self-drainage of all the rechargeable types) to where the thermal energy in the thermos equals the chemical energy in the battery - and I guarantee you the battery will outlast the thermos by thousands to one. That thermos will be cold before the workday ends. I mean, you could start thinking about the atomic energy in these two systems, let's compare that. I've got more atomic energy in a drop of water than that battery - how's that for energy density. But how are you going to extract, and then, in a controlled manner, harness that energy in a useful way on a portable scale. To date, batteries are the best portable form of energy. Period.



at 8/5/2008 5:21:53 PM, SJ said:
I think the grenade point is to warn the large power stored in a laptop battery that can cause serious damage if it goes out of control. This is the case when a badly/ cheaply designed charge controller goes bad and overcharges the battery to cause it to explode.



at 8/6/2008 5:59:48 AM, jbmcghee said:
It seems to me that we know they keep raising the watt hours on the batteries but they are also make machines that use less there for make a normal use battery run a lot longer. Heat energy has no storage capacity it is only good for makeing electrical power. Think about it a nucular power plant uses reactors to produce heat to flash off water to steam to turn electrical generators. enough said!



at 8/6/2008 7:12:36 AM, m.s. said:
QUESTION:
1. how can Lithium batteries be used in heart pacers ?
2. does the failure rate of Lithium batteries apply to
these the batteries used in heart pacers ?




at 8/6/2008 1:02:12 PM, Azabat said:
What about the efficiency / potential of storing PV or wind-generated energy using the recently-announced MIT breakthrough that efficiently splits H2O apart? It would seem to me that storing the resulting gases would be rather efficient and not prone to self-discharge. I don''t agree with the assertion that PV panels would cause major impacts on the ecosystem-- Actually, I think the use of PV and MIT''s technology could make home-based power generation and storage a reality, possibly negating the need for our present [expensive, inefficient and often not very reliable] power distribution grid.



at 8/20/2008 2:45:33 PM, SvrdishCheef said:
I berleeve dis word be a grd ting ina Svrdsh Cheef Eepisood on der Murpeeets!!



at 8/20/2008 2:46:42 PM, SvrdishCheef said:
BORK! BORK! BORK!



at 12/3/2008 2:15:57 PM, ALFRED said:
My question is the design of electric cars. Batteries are at 1-1/2 volts and to get up to a higher voltage we have to put them into series. Each link has been suggested a a weak link that now can be checked to reduce cost by removing the bad cell.
,but one cell may not take the amperage. My thoughts is to make a motor using 1-1/2 volts, large enough for high amperage
and enough area that cooling would not be an issue, compared to many series battery's. The other
functions that need higher voltage can still be made by using electronics. One large cell could be fitted into the door panels for crash protection and the roof panels, etc.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2010 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy