Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mjevans | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

mjevans

The problems that I see with this:

* Refueling requires hooking up and exchanging hazardous materials (fluids).

* This assumes that there's a single universal electrolyte fluid.

* Variability in fluid quality / consistency (across areas and batches) / return materials fraud are problems.

* The less sealed nature of the batteries is probably a safety hazard (increased crash/fire risk, etc).

I think that the public would be better served by standardizing on a few /types/ of battery packs as physical interfaces, and having rapid 'tank replacement' stations (robots) and leased battery packs.

Innovation in storage tech and/or picking a pack sized for the expected use would allow for improvements and competition as well as changes in technology.

View on HN

The never-wind people in an area I lived in shouted about rogue electricity killing cows.

Worrying about quality control of the fluids is similar. The global energy industry is up to the challenge of reliably producing batches of chemicals that narrowly match a particular specification.

That's where you (completely earnestly) start talking about how much more concerned you are about the extra wind and all the dangers from it, and maybe how you want the windmills there to slow down strong winds. Avoid discussing the danger of wind spills, you don't want it to be obvious that you're trolling them - you want them to start explaining to you that "it doesn't work that way."

If you can get them looking into it enough to try to teach you about it (seems like human nature to want to correct people who are wrong) then you've won because they'll also pick up (without being told in ways that get their backs up) that they were also wrong and they can just quietly abandon that stand.

For 3/4 of your concerns, kinda like gasoline?

Still has a point regarding the potential superiority of battery exchange programs. Gasoline isn't exactly the holy grail of fuels :)

Gasoline is mostly just flammable (and the vapor /slightly/ explosive).

We'd need to know more about what type of chemicals are used in this battery, but glancing at what's involved for 'flow batteries' I'd make a /slightly/ educated guess that these would all be considered 'industrial' materials. You might see a public bus using them, but I doubt it would be safe to allow the average driver to self-refuel.

The average driver refills their vehicle using decades old technology which would probably be unsuited for exchanging the fluid these batteries would need. Any kind of system for exchanging the fluid in a flow battery would probably be self contained and would be better designed than holding a lever on a nozzle dumping a flammable liquid into an empty vessel.

The article mentions the chemicals. Light alcohols and water.

Alcohols and water are just the solvent. It probably use some metal ion too. The charge of the ion can change "easily", so you can charge, discharge and recharge it.

> Gasoline is mostly just flammable (and the vapor /slightly/ explosive).

Gasoline is incredibly toxic, we are just accustom to it so we don't give it much though.

I wouldn't say 'incredibly' toxic. You can touch it for a while with no negative effects, and you shouldn't ingest it.

Which of the 4 is not like gasoline? Seems like 4/4 to me.

I'm seeing 3.5/4 - gasoline isn't returned to distributors after use.

Just less usefully so, as emissions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com