Technology

bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy

Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide.

Is this how Doom starts?

Well Edison is dead, but we do hear about him alot so I'm not sure what's going on.

About tree fiddy

Abstract

Downsizing metal nanoparticles into nanoclusters and single atoms represents a transformative approach to maximizing atom utilization efficiency for energy applications. Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide. Through KOH-catalyzed pyrolysis, the downsized metal nanoclusters and single atoms are embedded in a hierarchically porous protein/graphene-derived carbonaceous aerogel framework. The carbon-supported Fe subnanoclusters (FeSNC) as the negative electrode and Ni subnanoclusters (NiSNC) as the positive electrode exhibit remarkable specific capacitance (capacity) values of 373 F g−1 (93 mAh g−1) and 1125 F g−1 (101 mAh g−1) at 1.0 A g−1, respectively. Assembled into a supercapacitor-battery hybrid configuration, the device achieves an excellent specific energy (47 W h kg−1) and superior specific power (18 kW kg−1), while maintaining outstanding cycling stability of over 12 000 cycles. Moreover, FeSNCs displayed a significantly reduced oxygen evolution overpotential (η10 = 270 mV), outperforming the RuO2 benchmark (η10 = 328 mV). Molecular dynamics simulations, coupled with density functional theory calculations, offer insights into the dynamic behavior and electronic properties of these materials. This work underscores the immense potential of metallic subnanoclusters for advancing next-generation energy storage and conversion technologies.

Technically, a copper wire is a battery that charges in (a very tiny fraction of ) seconds.

Two important parts of a battery are how much energy it can store in a certain space and how much it weighs. If it is bigger and holds the same amount of energy that might be ok for a non mobile storage if it costs less, like a house. If it weighs more for a certain energy that wouldn't be useful for cars and mobile things but might be ok for small things where the weight is negligible anyway. For cars you want a small energy dense battery that is light as possible

Eeehhhhh — yeah

Aerogel. So not gonna be good for mobile applications— cars etc.

But might be workable for static applications????

Sometimes it's not pure bullshit, but instead intentionally misses details

Like articles going "new battery lasts 1000 years in one charge!" - which is true of Nuclear Batteries, because they give basically a maximum of 1 watt of energy per hour. (Which is useful for very specific purposes like a pacemaker)

And yet we have somehow gone from rechargeable phone batteries that were about 3 times bigger than the phone I'm typing this on and had a capacity of about 500 mAh to where we are now with the battery that powers my phone being some small part of it and having a capacity of 3000 mAh, with only two major technology changes on the way. Meanwhile, we've been using the same technology for over a decade and the capability keeps getting better. I wonder why that is?

The problem is that batteries must meet a whole set of other criteria as well to be competitive, for example cost and energy density. If they are not mentioned, they are probably worse in that aspect. Which just means they are still useful for some applications, just maybe not for cars, laptops or cellphones.

This is regular scientific hedging.

This thing, even if it turns out to be real good, it's years away from being a marketable product. And it's alright! It says more about sensationalism in scientific communication.

Eh, give em the clout they need to develop it further.

To be fair, commercial long-life nickel-iron batteries are already being sold for grid storage. The main reason they aren't used more widely is they cost more up front.

That's ok, because they still cost less than alternatives over the full life span of the battery.

The risk is that the higher purchase cost required will likely be wasted as new battery tech surpasses it long before its life is over.

So for now, it's all about weighing opportunity cost, tech lock-in, and early obsolescence

Well tbf this was a university lab which isn't focused on commercial production but just trying to prove their experiments

UPS batteries are something i don't understand either. Why have they not changed with all the new tech we have now? Is it just still made of the best chemicals for their use and to then be recycled or something?