Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
I think even 60% efficiency would still be fine if the storage was cheap enough and scales well. Just build more solar cells or wind mills to compensate the inefficiency. Neither lithium-ion nor gravity based systems seem particularly scalable to me. So a good-enough system that’s scalable will be a winner in the long run I think.
This one I presume:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear battery technology claimant,
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
[ ] your claims are lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
article actually seems to cover all this issues well (except maybe for ‘your claims are lies’), so I’m hopeful about this one.
>liquid-CO2 system has a round-trip efficiency of 75-80%
You mean this part?
Edit: this is pretty much theoretical Carno cycle and it has moving parts
I think even 60% efficiency would still be fine if the storage was cheap enough and scales well. Just build more solar cells or wind mills to compensate the inefficiency. Neither lithium-ion nor gravity based systems seem particularly scalable to me. So a good-enough system that’s scalable will be a winner in the long run I think.
That's for heat conversion, no? This isn't about heat.