Nanotech Breakthrough Could Offer More Efficient Energy Storage
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 09.16.08
image: Wikipedia
Many people believe that lack of efficient enough storage is one of the hurdles to be cleared before renewable energy can truly reach its potential. Towards that end, scientists from the University of Texas as Austin have announced that they have made a nanotech breakthrough using Graphene, a one atom thick carbon material, which they say could lead to new energy storage solutions.
Could Double Storage Capacity of Ultracapacitors
Rod Ruoff, a mechanical engineering professor at UT Austin and his team are testing graphene-based ultracapacitor cells, using chemically modified graphene and different common electrolytes. While currently the electric charge stored per weight of graphene is similar to existing ultracapacitors, computer modeling suggests it may be possible to double this capacity.
Ruff explains it a bit more:
Through such a device, electrical charge can be rapidly stored on the graphene sheets, and released from them as well for the delivery of electrical current and, thus, electrical power. There are reasons to think that the ability to store electrical charge can be about double that of current commercially used materials. We are working to see if that prediction will be borne out in the laboratory.
A Football Field Worth of Surface Area
In the original article on ENS Ruoff said that Graphene’s surface area is nearly that of a football field in about about 1/500th of a pound of material. This means that, “a greater number of positive or negative ions in the electrolyte can form in a layer on the graphene sheets resulting in exceptional levels of stored charge.”
UPDATE: We generally try to coordinate our posts here at TreeHugger so that two writers aren't covering the same subject, pretty basic really. So imagine my surprise and shock when I thought I had posted on something a colleague had aleady written about but had missed. But then I discovered that Mike had written about a different "nanotech breakthrough" dealing with ultracapacitors, this time from researchers in China and not Texas. Take a look at the article linked above for more info. How many nanotech breakthroughs can there be in a day?
via :: ENS
More at :: Science Daily
Renewable Energy Storage
New Jersey Utility Invests $20 Million Into Compressed Air Energy Storage
The Vanadium Battery: The Ultimate Energy Storage Solution
“Major Breakthrough” in Hydrogen Production: Video Interview with Daniel Nocera
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 5 Reuses for Altoid Tins
- How to Use a Solar Cooker: What Works and What Doesn't
- Cooking on a Budget: Use Everything
- French Pressed Coffee: A Surprisingly Green Luxury, On the Cheap
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
Has anyone else noticed that carbon has become a bad word? I'm glad to see some good news associated with carbon, an oft-maligned and misunderstood element. ;-)
Finish this:
If it weren't for carbon...
Graphene does have a lot of absolutely amazing electrical properties. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to work with. It is only one layer of carbon atoms thick.
As far as I am aware, the current method of producing graphene is still to get a chunk of graphite, then use a piece of tape to pull some off, At least some of the flecks pulled off will be just a layer or two thick. Good for experiments, but far from ready for commercialization.
I agree, Anthony. Graphene is still one step above vaporware any voodoo at this point - only made in trace quantities by an entirely non-scalable method.
I wouldn't define this as a "Breakthough" but more just one nice paper on the vogue material of 2008.
Treehugger needs some professional journalism reporting. This story is like a story on war with no mention of peace. Many people like myself feel Nano-TECH is Nano-TOXIC. Please do some reporting on that side.
There seem to be some NANO-minded people who control tree hugger. Could be that they have some money connection? What else would explain the lack of reporting on both sides of the issue?
http://tinyurl.com/nanotoxic
The problem with a Nano-TOXIC cleanup is that you can't clean it up. When people die from nano-Toxins no medical facility can do a nano-autopsy. How can you study the dangers or safety of nano particles when there is almost no technology to detect them and their spread?
Actually, re: making graphene, Technology Review had an article in April on making larger sheets of graphene using essentially a paper-making process. So there is some hope of a scalable method. My personal hope is that someone creates a nano-assembler to make graphene sheets. There's currently a lot of research on self-assembly and nano-assembly of carbon nanotubes, which are a lot like graphene, only rolled up.
Also: Agree with Flubber that it's great to see carbon in a good light. I think it's such a waste to put CO2 into the ground to sequester it - much better to sequester carbon into useful things like carbon fiber, buckytubes, and graphene (and wood). It does take some energy to get the carbon out of CO2, but there's really quite a lot it could be used for.
surface area is nearly that of a football field in about about 1/500th of a pound of material
BIG surface for a TINY amount of the STUFF (about 6000 square meters per gram).
Simplify your language while keeping it scientific.. switch to metric system, please.
I'm wondering if the previous posters deliberately ignored your comments Joe.
Which would you rather eat - pure carbon (which is essentially what graphene and nanotubes are) or lead, mercury and cadmium? All of the above are used in current electrical storage solutions.
Yes, nanoparticles could theoretically, maybe, potentially cause problems. Vitamin C increases your risk of getting cancer in high enough doses. In lower doses (as found in fruit, not supplements), it stops you getting scurvy. So if I avoid eating fruit I may reduce my risk certain of getting certain cancers. I will also get scurvy and my mouth and skin will apart. Which would you risk? While attempting to slate an articles reporting as been unbalanced, you have shown yourself unable to demonstrate the ability to take a balanced approach to assessing risk.
Life is not risk free, there is no such thing as a perfect solution. That is why educated people still bother to do research. The articles do not mention any factory producing the new technology that will spew vast amounts of nano-byproducts into the environment; merely that have made some progress at solving an extremely important problem. When they propose manufacturing it, then let experts make an informed environmental impact assessment. You have tarred all so called nanoparticle technologies with the same brush. The link you posted mentioned that silver is the only nanoparticle to date to have been shown to be harmful to living cells. This in itself is perhaps not surprising considering colloidal silver has been used for over century for its virucidal and bactericidal properties, and collateral damage is well established, understood and accepted.
Caution is never a bad thing, but it is important to hold in my mind the phrase "innocent until proven guilty."