Jelly-based lithium battery developed by Leeds researchers

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,279   +192
Staff member

Researchers from the University of Leeds have developed a polymer jelly that could make batteries of the future safer, cheaper, smaller and more powerful. The technology could lead to thinner and lighter notebook computers and more efficient batteries for electric cars, according to a report from the BBC.

Current lithium batteries are comprised mostly of volatile and hazardous liquid electrolyte that is susceptible to dangers like leakage and overheating, a phenomenon called thermal runaway -- a serious concern for notebook manufacturers. 

Dell was forced to recall over four million notebook batteries in August 2006 after it came to light that they could overheat and pose a fire hazard. HP had to do the same in 2009 when it was discovered that 70,000 batteries were deemed unsafe.

While today’s electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles, the concept is still hindered by excessive weight and cost from multiple batteries and redundant safety features required to prevent overheating. Jelly batteries are said to have no risk of thermal runaway which would eliminate the heavy and costly safety mechanisms, resulting in better performance and driving range between charges.

Researchers were able to combine a rubber-like polymer with liquid electrolyte into a thin, flexible jelly that lies between the battery electrodes. As such, the solid jelly wouldn’t leak if a battery were punctured

There is no release date for these new jelly batteries but ITpro believes that we could begin seeing them in commercial use within the next couple of years. According to their report, the technology has already been licensed to California-based PolyStor Energy Corporation.

Permalink to story.

 
Jelly based battery for electric cars? I can't help but be reminded of the movie Demolition Man. That's cool.
 
"electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles" Actually they're not.
"gasoline has 40x the energy per gram, compared to lithium batteries" and these batteries cost $100/lb. Lead acid batteries are 400x less efficient than gas by weight.
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/physics%2010%20notes/Electric%20cars%20.html
 
Still not a Mr Fussion. I want to run my car on a bannana peel and soda can.
 
Perhaps what they meant is how much of the energy from the gasoline is actually used by the car rather than lost through the heat. With batteries most of the energy from the batteries is used by the car and thus is more efficient than gasoline in which only around 30 percent of the energy is actually used while the rest is lost through heat. However if you're just talking about pure energy, gasoline has more energy per weight than battery. Same reason why jet fuel is very very very expensive because per weight, it provides a lot of energy.
 
Guest said:
"electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles" Actually they're not.
"gasoline has 40x the energy per gram, compared to lithium batteries" and these batteries cost $100/lb. Lead acid batteries are 400x less efficient than gas by weight.
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old physics 10/physics 10 notes/Electric cars .html

except electric car batteries aren't made out of lithium........
if they were, they would weigh much, much more.
i don't know where you got that from, but most electric cars use a type of lanthanum battery that is much more weight efficient.
gas powered car are very inefficient, they only use about 20% of the generated energy. Compared to the nickel metal hydride(lanthanum + mixture of other metals) battery with an efficiency of about 70%. Most electrical cars require gas to run and the energy also comes from inefficient powerplants, so that bring the efficiency down a bit. The electrical cars are still more efficient though.
 
True. It's not like gasoline is all safe anyways so there's some drawbacks but now the question is whether the advantages outweighs the disadvantages which it seems to be the case here.
 
Back