Talk:Molten salt battery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Calories or Kilocalories?[edit]

I quote, "The higher the potassium perchorate level, the higher the heat output (nominally 200, 259, and 297 calories/gram, respectively)." Is this actually calories or kilocalories? Oil is approx. 8-9 kilocalories/gram for comparison. So the perchlorate (I assume perchorate -missing L- was a typo) is either much higher or lower. The solution is to give the answer in Joules and not mix English and metric units (calories and grams). (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Molten Salt battey/ Thermal Battery- Weapons/Missile Engineering[edit]

I came to this page via a line on the page for the Paveway LGB. Do most military missiles use a thermal battery liek this? Might be worth mentioning on page. Wfoj2 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cost effectiveness in electric cars?[edit]

How about usefulness in electric cars? Would the requirement to keep charging be a problem? Could it be kept thermally insulated when not in use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's usefulness in electric cars is excellent[edit]

It's usefulness in electric cars is excellent for electric cars in use, and less so for cars that are infrequently used. Zebra does not discharge, ever! Though it does cool down if it isn't used or heated. This distinction is not important if the car is never used, as the charger keep the battery hot. If the combined losses in the battery in use is about 20% a day (during charging, acceleration and regenerative braking), no heating or cooling of the battery is necessary. This would be quite normal in use. If the combined losses is higher fans keep the internal temperature below 350C. This would be quite normal if the driver is fond of speed. LiFePO4 prefer cold temperatures and is cooled even when stationary, and more so when used. Other Lithium based chemistry needs even more cooling. Losses is dependent on ambient temperature and increases with temperature and use.

Fossil ICE have losses at about 60% for diesel and 70% gas, in ideal conditions. Real life losses is often more than 90% (due to no regenerative braking and other factors). Hydrogen fuel cell have losses about 75% in ideal conditions, excluding charger/electronics/engine (losses both in hydrogen generation and in the fuel cell). Hydrogen ICE have horrendous efficiency (losses both in hydrogen generation and in the ICE)

Plug to wheel efficiency:

  • Zebra 80% or so.
  • LiFePO4 80% or so.
  • Hydrogen fuel cell 25% or worse.
  • Hydrogen ICE horrendous.

Pump to wheel efficiency:

  • Gas 10 to 30%.
  • Diesel 15 to 40%.

PolarNight (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Heat Loss Rate Statement[edit]

"loses heat at a rate of 135 W" 135 W is not a rate. (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

W is a rate. It's J/s. (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia article states: "Beta Research Ltd's ZEBRA pack (see image), for example, loses heat at the rate of 135W.[2] ". This statement's reference ( actually says: "Thermal losses at 270 C internal = W <135". This means that the batteries generate a heat dissipation of less than 135 Watt while operating with a 270C internal temperature. This is an efficiency statement and not a cool-down 'rate'! I am a thermal engineer and I approve this message.

Discharge Rate[edit]

Zebra does not discharge, ever. The <135 W specified in ( refer to thermal dissipation. This is one of the reasons the individual cells does not go out of step, and therefore the battery does not need balancing. The 18% discharge/ day is utterly incorrect.

PolarNight (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Unless you've come up with some way of perfectly sealing the cell from all forms of electrical loss, including air ions, corrosion, etc, it will eventually discharge. Might take several years, as in the case of alkaline or dry-cell batteries, but it will happen.
Plus it's losing energy all the while with that 135w heat dissipation; is not some of it's stored energy used to keep it warm, even just by accidental chemical processes? That would be a smart thing to do, maybe even build into the design; a battery that's lost half it's charge after 3 days is far more useful than one that would have had 99%, but has solidified and become useless. However if it lost 18% per day just from that I'd be wary of how much it stored in total. I figure 18kWh, which... well, ok. That's 65 miles at 65mph, in a small vehicle such as the Think.
But it's an odd way of describing it. Something which loses 18% per day also will never actually discharge, as the discharge rate will fall exponentially as it runs out of stored energy. By the 6th day, when you'd expect it to be empty (if it were a set amount equal to 18% of the initial charge), you'd still have 30% left. 9% by the 12th. 2.7% by the 18th. Maybe not enough to get you home from the airport after two weeks away, (and having driven there in the first place), but enough to creep out of the multistorey parking lot and to a nearby recharge station to leave it for half an hour whilst you grab an unplanned coffee and doughnut. Presuming some kind of deep witchcraft is in effect where it needs relatively less power to keep it warm as the charge depletes!
I must say however I'm impressed at how it only needs that amount of power or less, continuous, to keep something of that size so hot with what is probably minimal insulation. A home oven or freezer is relatively closer to ambient air temperature with a similar volume and presumably better insulation (less limited by size and weight) but needs at least as much on average. (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ZEBRA name[edit]

There appears to be some discrepancy on the origin of the ZEBRA name. This page claims its origin is Zeolite Battery Research Africa, while the Electric Automotive Association of Europe claims the acronym means "Zero Emission Battery Research Activities." Also see Braithwaite and Auxer, Ch 40 of Handbook of Batteries, 3rd ed. Is there a primary source to reference here?

Recharge the zebra battery[edit]

How can the zebra battery be recharged.. can they directly be heated.using any source like CSP for example — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing research - Magnesium–antimony cells?[edit]

In a December 2012 BBC interview, ( Donald Sadoway described the basic version of his battery which used magnesium for the top layer and antimony for the bottom layer as "generation zero". He said "We now have chemistries that we're calling fourth generation, fifth generation." Maybe the heading for this section "Magnesium–antimony cells" is no longer correct? Not sure what it should be called instead.SylviaStanley (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the SONIC section an advertisement?[edit]

Under the heading Na-NiCl2 the section of SONIC reads like an advertisment blurb. Shouldn't it be edited to be more neutral in tone? Linkato1 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Have trimmed content. PeterEastern (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup and reorganisation[edit]

I have given the article a bit of a rework to:

  • Shorten and focus the lead
  • Separate discussion of the technologies from the applications
  • Move discussion of the emerging Magnesium–antimony/Lead-antimony batteries into the main section on rechargeable batteries
  • Remove the rather uninformative image (related to the Zebra battery) and the related info box
  • Move detailed discussion of Magnesium–antimony/Lead-antimony batteries from lead to relevant section

PeterEastern (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)