Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sugar Batteries Could Store 20% More Energy Than Li-Ions

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sweet-deal dept.

Japan 152

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at the Tokyo University of Science have developed a way to create sugar batteries that store 20% more energy than lithium-ion cells. Before it can be used as the anode in a sodium-ion battery, sucrose powder is turned into hard carbon powder by heating it to up to 1,500 degrees celsius in an oxygen-free oven." Except that swapping batteries might be a bit tricky, I can think of a perfect application for these.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

God Damn JAPANESE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495163)

First those Japanese DOGS take our island that we never visit.

Now they are taking our sugar for batteries.

I must commit Harry Kerry at once. For honor, and rice.

Re:God Damn JAPANESE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496641)

They say don't feed the trolls, but dude, you fucking suck! Your post was retarded, you can't spell, and honorable suicide, Harakiri, is a Japanese thing, not Chinese you moronic douche bag. Ironically, you have failed so hard that perhaps it is YOU who should kill yourself, not any Chinese. Unless you ARE Chinese, but I kind of doubt that, you're obviously too fucking stupid.

For rice indeed, you sad piece of dog shit... A lesser man would tell you to open your own bowels and let the shit that is you spill forth, you dickless asshole. Racism is so last century, so who the hell invited you to this one, eh? And no, your joke wasn't funny.

Re:God Damn JAPANESE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496669)

Then rhy am I raffing so rawd?

U MAD BWO?

Re:God Damn JAPANESE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496705)

I don't see what the big deal is.

Chinese people and Japanse dogs all have very small penises. It looks like a limp roll of pennies.

Oh wait.. you probably don't know what a penny is.

A penny is what a westerner pays to defile one of your women.

That would be sweet (5, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495189)

And I ain't li-on.

dry-charge battery, no doubt (2)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495293)

activated by insulin injection ;)

Re:That would be sweet (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495347)

Use too many for too long and you'd end up with diabatteries

Re:That would be sweet (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495477)

Use too many for too long and you'd end up with diabatteries

Better yet, there's the battery casing that you pump the sugar into - small children. Yikes! Too much energy!

Re:That would be sweet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495705)

You won't be able to buy them in New York City. I'm shocked that you haven't considered that.

Re:That would be sweet (4, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495763)

They'll sell them here, but only in a 16 oz version.

Recharges will be free though, and you can get one in a value combo with a chicken parmesan capacitor (for a limited time).

Re:That would be sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495533)

great. now in addition to warnings not to incinerate, install backwards, crush, or short-circuit batteries, now they'll also have to carry warnings against EATING the batteries. lovely.

Re:That would be sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496405)

An old iPod I have (the first generation Shuffle) has a warning not to eat it. Also, the 9mm ammo boxes I have also have a warning not to eat as well.

What bothers me... an iPod is one thing... but 9mm ammo... I really do not want to know what forced the maker of it to slap that warning on.

Re:That would be sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495611)

Snoop Lion will probably be the face for this new line of batteries.

Re:That would be sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496089)

You rock: first post and punny clever.

terrible reporting yet again (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495195)

So... there's no actual sugar in it, just a carbon/sodium anode. So why call it a sugar battery? Pure asshattery of course!

Re:terrible reporting yet again (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495833)

Could be worse. If the researcher was within 1000KM of a 3D printer then the /. geeks would loudly claim that we can now 3D print batteries. Worst of all, if there was a story about Mars or Elon Musk in the last week, the story would have been about how sugar batteries will help private space tourists to colonize Mars.

Think I'm exaggerating?

Re:terrible reporting yet again (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496185)

OMG! You mean scientists can now 3D print batteries to fly to Mars? I have to publish a science article on it right away!

Re:terrible reporting yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496213)

Yeah, we totally can! And we'll print out new elements too as we need them! Star Trek uses verterium cortenide, print it out! The Periodic Suggestion of Elelments has tyrannized us for long enough!

Re:terrible reporting yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496247)

Duh! It's a sugar coated topic.

Re:terrible reporting yet again (3, Funny)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496611)

I don't think the story has fully crystallized; they'll lattice know later.

Re:terrible reporting yet again (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496263)

So... there's no actual sugar in it, just a carbon/sodium anode. So why call it a sugar battery? Pure asshattery of course!

It's in the same realm as calling coal fired plants "plant and/or solar" powered. In a way they're correct, but it comes off as an engineered distortion.

Re:terrible reporting yet again (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496403)

Plants are nuclear-powered anyway...

Re:terrible reporting yet again (2)

shione (666388) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496519)

Wouldn't that make them pure assbattery?

Turning food into electricity... (-1, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495203)

... or another form of power is a sin.

I cannot find the right words to say how much this offends me. There are plenty of other places to get carbon that does not mean driving up the cost of food for everyone else, especially in poorer countries, like what has happened with corn/maize.

--
BMO

Re:Turning food into electricity... (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495287)

... or another form of power is a sin.

I cannot find the right words to say how much this offends me. There are plenty of other places to get carbon that does not mean driving up the cost of food for everyone else, especially in poorer countries, like what has happened with corn/maize.

--
BMO

Meh, we just plant more beets or cane.
There's no shortage [reuters.com] of sugar in the world, so its not like you are taking food out of people's mouth.

Further, US style high-surgar diets being exported to poor countries is very harmful [theecologist.org] .

In these countries, traditional healthy diets, made up of grains, beans, vegetables, fresh fruit and animal products are being replaced by more processed and junk foods high in saturated fats, salt and sugar.

Batteries may turn out to be the best use for excess sugar, since the alternative would be eating it.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (0, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495475)

>There's no shortage [reuters.com] of sugar in the world, so its not like you are taking food out of people's mouth.

But it could create one. Like it did with corn.

Not addressed to you:

Oh, and btw mods, "overrated" and "flamebait" are not "I disagree"

Thanks.

--
BMO

Re:Turning food into electricity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495501)

Oh, and btw mods, "overrated" and "flamebait" are not "I disagree"

You keep using that statement. I do not think it means what you think it means

Re:Turning food into electricity... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495887)

Oh, and btw mods, "overrated" and "flamebait" are not "I disagree"

Thanks.

But there's no "You are an idiot" mod, so I guess they'll have to do.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496751)

"or another form of power is a sin."

The moment you started talking about sin your post became Flamebait. The mods are doing their job well.

It would also help if you posted citations supporting your claims.

Why should anyone trust what you happen to believe are facts? On that basis, Overrated becomes acceptable.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496347)

Wow. They started using sugar in food again? I must have missed that bulletin.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (-1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495389)

Poor countries are free to alter their cultures and populations for better quality of life.

Their relentless failure to feed themselves is neither my fault nor my concern. If THEY are responsible for nothing, neither am I.

Randroid says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495845)

mod this +5 misanthropic

Re:Turning food into electricity... (5, Insightful)

spauldo (118058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495573)

You're missing a huge factor of scale here.

We're using corn, soybeans, etc. as fuel. They're the energy source, so a lot of the market goes into fuel instead of food. Run out of fuel, you need more corn.

These guys are using sugar to make a component on the battery. The energy comes from somewhere else. No matter how many times you recharge the battery, you won't use any more sugar.

Even if we went into full scale production of these and replaced Li-Ion batteries altogether, it wouldn't make an appreciable difference on the sugar market.

As an aside, you also have to consider that by removing the requirement of lithium, you're moving from a scarce resource to a common one. We could make those batteries in the U.S. (or whatever country you happen to be in) and not require buying lithium from China. Lithium is used for several drugs, and by removing the demand for lithium, those drugs may drop in price to the point they'll be more accessible to people in poorer countries.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495741)

but why start with sucrose? Any vegetable matter will do. Grass clippings are cheaper.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (3, Insightful)

spauldo (118058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496033)

As a guess, I'd say it was because grass clippings and other vegetable matter aren't very consistant and would require refining to attain the purity of carbon needed.

Sugar (sucrose, anyway) is a refined product. I know, I pick up truckloads of it in Louisiana from the Domino refinery every now and again :) A fellow truck driver got a bag of raw sugar off a dump truck that was being delivered there, but he couldn't use it because it had sand in it.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496245)

A fellow truck driver got a bag of raw sugar off a dump truck that was being delivered there, but he couldn't use it because it had sand in it.

Ok, I know truck drivers stereotypically don't have the highest education, but... don't they teach how to separate sugar from sand in elementary school science class?

Re:Turning food into electricity... (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496655)

I could separate sand and sugar and if I had no other source of sugar or my time was worth nothing I might. With the price of sugar as it is it wouldn't take many minutes of effort before it wasn't worth it, even for a truck driver.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496357)

Lithium is used for several drugs, and by removing the demand for lithium, those drugs may drop in price to the point they'll be more accessible to people in poorer countries.

I don't know for certain but I'd say the reasons which keep Depakote and other lithium mood stabilizers expensive have little to do with the supply of lithium.

Inflation adjusted prices of lithium have been stable since the seventies at just over 40$ per pound in 1998 prices, in 1998. [usgs.gov] I'd say the prices have to do with patents.

I believe the maker of depakote actually just paid around two billion dollars. It works wonders for many and its properties were discovered by noting that at a certain sanatarium, patients with unstable moods were calmer, the water was tested and found to have high Li levels.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (0)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496401)

Even if we went into full scale production of these and replaced Li-Ion batteries altogether, it wouldn't make an appreciable difference on the sugar market.

And if these can be made from palm sugar instead of cane sugar, all we need to do is replace the world's remaining tropical rainforest with more palm plantations and all our supply problems are gone, right?

Re:Turning food into electricity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495937)

1. Yes, it happened with corn/maize. Good. It's among the worst grains available. And for the gluten free (myself included), I throw in corn with all things gluten. It's better that way.

2. Sugar is bad, too. Get real food that naturally tastes good. You don't need to sweeten everything to make it taste good. The only reason for that is because you've numbed yourself to every other good taste and are addicted to the sugar. Get off of it. You'll be better for it.

Re:Turning food into electricity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496115)

... or another form of power is a sin.

I cannot find the right words to say how much this offends me. There are plenty of other places to get carbon that does not mean driving up the cost of food for everyone else, especially in poorer countries, like what has happened with corn/maize.

-- BMO

Fuck the poor

-M. Romney

I Can See It Now (4, Funny)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495211)

"Hey! were's my cell phone?! Those ants are taking it! STOP!"

How is it a "sugar battery" then? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495213)

If you carbonize it, it's no longer sugar. You could probably use a host of other substances for the same purpose besides sucrose.

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (3, Informative)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495409)

It demonstrates how it uses a cheap, plentiful materials (unlike Lithium).

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (3, Interesting)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496081)

...bringing an all electric vehicle infrastructure within potential reach (on the battery end of things anyway). Lithium just isn't going to cut it.

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495571)

If you carbonize it, it's no longer sugar. You could probably use a host of other substances for the same purpose besides sucrose.

Hmmm... there's a lot of carbon in people... when they start making "Green" batteries we may have cause for concern

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (4, Funny)

quintus_horatius (1119995) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496177)

Soylent batteries?

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (1)

spauldo (118058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495583)

It's a sugar battery because journalists think it'll generate interest in their stories.

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496525)

Exactly. I remember reading a paper where the researchers actually used dog shit and girl scout cookies to show that they could grow carbon nanofibers from generic carbon sources.

Re:How is it a "sugar battery" then? (2)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496633)

...girl scout cookies to show that they could grow carbon nanofibers from generic carbon sources.

At the price they charge, Girl Scout Cookies are no where near being generic carbon sources.

Sugar my butt ... (1, Insightful)

gewalker (57809) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495221)

Carbon / Sodium battery not sugar battery. Must be just like Spenda -- We processed sugar so that it is no longer sugar, so we can make a stupid claim that gets your attention because you are fooled into thinking it is somehow made of sugar.

Re:Sugar my butt ... (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496259)

I'm not concerned with whether it's really sugar. I'm hoping it doesn't get sold to the oil industry for a billion dollars, and quietly disappear.

Re:Sugar my butt ... (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496665)

I refuse to sugar your butt!

Carbon powder, not sugar (4, Insightful)

ChronoReverse (858838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495235)

It seems to me pretty disingenuous to say that the batteries are using sugar when it's really just carbon powder (which can be made from sugar).

But we're not talking sugar straight out of the paper packet. Before it can be used as the anode in a sodium-ion battery, sucrose powder is turned into hard carbon powder by heating it to up to 1,500 degrees celsius in an oxygen-free oven

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495305)

So one wonders what the effect would be of using a more pure form of carbon.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (1)

spauldo (118058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495585)

The price would go up, which defeats the point of using sugar in the first place.

No idea from the scientific point of view. The article wasn't aimed at a technical audience.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495685)

Not really. You could probably get carbon from coal cheaply enough. Especially with many countries no longer using coal from power plants and such. Carbon is not a rare element by any means. There's probably much cheaper ways to get carbon powder than heating up sugar to 1500 degrees. I really don't know how similar it is to what they are using, but graphite powder [amazon.com] is pretty cheap. If you're actually using it produce batteries, the bulk price is even cheaper [alibaba.com] . Only about 20 cents a pound.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (1)

spauldo (118058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496055)

Coal probably wouldn't work. It contains impurities that would need to be removed. That's why steel was traditionally smelted with charcoal.

Also, bear in mind that this is a university project, not a factory. They can just send an undergrad to the market to pick up sugar. I'm not sure what the price there is (I never bought sugar when I lived there, since I ate at the chow hall and can't drink coffee), but they grow sugar cane in Okinawa and probably don't have the price fixing that sugar has in America.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495723)

From TFA:

In reality, there are many raw materials that can be turned into carbon in a similar fashion, but the advantage to using sugar is that's it's practically an unlimited resource.

Sugar can be produced exceedingly cheap.

If you can take something that's cheap to produce like sugar and turn that into electricity, then you have cheap, renewable electricity.

Judging by how cheap rum is in Cuba (who make some fantastic rum for those of you who can't go there), growing sugar isn't exactly taxing. Let the sun do the work, and harvest it.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (1)

spauldo (118058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496099)

Cane sugar isn't the same thing as what you get in the bag. It has to be refined first. Raw sugar cane wouldn't have any advantage over other biomass for making pure carbon.

Concerning energy production, sugar cane is one of the few places where ethanol fuel makes sense. In Brazil they estimate they get 1.3 times the energy from ethanol than they put into producing it. That's a much better figure than corn ethanol, which is an energy loss.

As far as growing sugarcane not being taxing - I've seen sugarcane farmers at work in Okinawa. It made me glad to have a desk job :) (It's also the only time I saw any Japanese people wearing the conical reed hats that Americans stereotype asians with.)

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496423)

...in Cuba (who make some fantastic rum for those of you who can't go there)

I wonder who it is you think _can't_ go there?

I'm kinda guessing you're trying to imply that Americans can't go. If so, you're mistaken.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496271)

It seems to me pretty disingenuous to say that the batteries are using sugar when it's really just carbon powder (which can be made from sugar).

Yeah, but see, the people who actually did make these batteries... they used sugar to do it. It really doesn't matter worth a flying fuck what they "could" have done, it's still not disingenous to report on what they did.

Re:Carbon powder, not sugar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496479)

I know if I take cellulose, and heat it up to 1,500C in an oxygen-free oven I get charcoal, a hard carbon powder.

cellulose is C6H10O5

sucrose is C12H22O11

Pretty close. How hard would it be to make batteries with charcoal then?

And didn't the old lead-acid batteries – i.e. what we had before alkaline, hi-cad, li-ion, etc., batteries – have a graphite anode?

FrisT stop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495299)

[gay-sex-acce5s.com]? Into a slinG unless

Carbon is not Sugar (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495307)

So wait, people, I've got an idea for taking the protons, electrons, and neutrons in Sugar(!) and rearranging groups of 144 neutrons and 94 protons and combining them into a new configuration which is Pu-238 (plutonium 238 [wikipedia.org] ) and use them to create a super-duper new battery that has even more energy density!

If they can argue that carbonizing C_6 H_12 O_6 into carbon with high temperature still allows them to call it a "sugar battery", I argue that my elemental alchemist's transformation into plutonium can also be called a sugar battery.

Re:Carbon is not Sugar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495415)

That doesn't work. You'd have extra protons and electrons left over without matching neutrons.

:) --- Alchemist's license #2378457, Class A (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496317)

Of course there are leftovers. I was not trying to balance the equations for C_6 H_{12} O_6 on one side and Pu^{238}_1 on the other side. I was using my Alchemist's license, which I keep on hand next to my Poetic License. If I were eco-freakin'-good, I could balance it and take the left-over protons+neutrons+electrons and create plain old {H_2 O} out of it. :)

Re:Carbon is not Sugar (3, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495569)

If they can argue that carbonizing C_6 H_12 O_6 into carbon with high temperature still allows them to call it a "sugar battery", I argue that my elemental alchemist's transformation into plutonium can also be called a sugar battery.

If you can actually do it, then by all means, patent your nuclear sugar battery.

It's the making it that's the hard part.

Hell, TFA even says "In reality, there are many raw materials that can be turned into carbon in a similar fashion, but the advantage to using sugar is that's it's practically an unlimited resource."

If you can make plutonium out of sugar, then I bet you'll be a rich man, because gold would be trivial.

Re:Carbon is not Sugar (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496325)

I was commenting on the humor of still calling it sugar, not making light of the achievement of using sugar to heat. Carbon is actually fairly cheap to find without any attached hydrogens or oxygens. It's so abundant that we take the output of coal mines and just burn it for energy. Anyway, the comments about "Alchemy" should have given away the joking tone about rearranging subatomic particles.

Re:Carbon is not Sugar (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496721)

Also, a ton of sugar would cost a lot more than a ton of coal. The amount of coal is so abundant still that the market price of it is lower than the cost of raising sugar-cane or sugar-beets and refining them into sugar.

a ton of coal costs from $30 per 2000 lbs in Y2K upto $150 per 2000 lbs in the year 2008, and about $30-$50 per ton in May of 2012.

a ton of sugar would cost about $600 with the world price of sugar at less than 60 cents per kilogram.

In America ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495311)

In America, first you get the sugar then you get the power, then you get the women.

Re:In America ... (2, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495541)

Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but - I think you need the women before you can get any sugar.

Re:In America ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495739)

Ummm ... whoosh? [about.com]

Re:In America ... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496359)

In America, first you get the sugar then you get the couch, then you get the diabetes.

FTFY

Improving battery tech (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495337)

Battery tech is growing fast. I saw a PBS show on research that has a pretty good grasp of how to replicate plantlife's ability to convrrt sunlight into sugars. The batteries based on this are already providing all the needs of mid-sized office buildings.

Buck the almighty! (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495413)

> Except that swapping batteries might be a bit tricky,

Apple would like to get behind this wonderful new technology. Now we must find a judge who will let us patent Sugar. Muhahahahah!

Re:Buck the almighty! (2)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495455)

That would be iSugar.

Re:Buck the almighty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496281)

iCube isn't made any more.

and undergrad biochem class teaches us... (2)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495449)

...that a fat (based) battery could store 9/4ths of the energy than a "sugar battery" does. (fat: 9kcal/mol sugar: 4kcal/mol)

Re:and undergrad biochem class teaches us... (1)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495625)

I'm not fat, I just got the extended battery!

Fat batteries... (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495715)

Can we artificially produce fat?
If not, perhaps this is a solution to the obesity epidemic. Companies will *pay* you for lyposuction and then use the byproduct to make power :-)

Re:and undergrad biochem class teaches us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495807)

And what's the ratio of the weight of a mole fat vs the weight of a mole of sugar?

Re:and undergrad biochem class teaches us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495983)

For batteries density matters, not number of molecules.

Sucrose
3.94 kcal/g
1.587 g/cm^3
=> 2.48 kcal/cm^3

Fat
7 to 9 kcal/cm^4
Can't seem to find a value for the density...

Re:and undergrad biochem class teaches us... (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496377)

I found it in three seconds by asking Aunt Google. It varies by type but is generally around 920 kg/m^3. Given 7-9 kcal/g (since I'm not sure what a cm^4 would be anyway, I'll assume that was a typo), Aunt Google says 6.44 - 8.28 kcal/cm^3. Of course, she also said that 3.94 (kcal / g) * (1.58700 (g / (cm^3))) = 6.25278 kcal / (cm^3), which makes oil practically the same to around 20% better.

It's like you're not even TRYING (0)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495485)

Except that swapping batteries might be a bit sticky.

FTFY.

Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495527)

Except that swapping batteries might be a bit tricky, I can think of a perfect application for these. ...it's a suppository.

Sweet! (0)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495549)

Title says it all (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Re:Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496297)

Not to be confused with a non-x-mas "shocking sucker"?

Uh ... No. (5, Informative)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495601)

First, regarding the so-called sugar battery;
It's really a sodium-ion battery.
They claim a 20% increase in power storage over a lithium-ion, which probably means a 20% decrease in cost, best case.
Sodium-ion batteries have cycle problems - after about 50 charge/discharges, they typically have 50% of their original capacity. They don't even talk about this, so I'm betting they haven't solved the problem.

Second, about lithium-ion batteries;
Lithium isn't rare - you could extract it from sea water for about 3 times what it costs now. Even at that price it wouldn't mean much to lithium-ion batteries, because despite the name, lithium isn't the primary ingredient, nor is it the most costly.

Envia's breakthrough battery [nytimes.com] is a lot better at 3 times the energy density and half the cost, and it's a lot closer to market.

Re:Uh ... No. (1)

rush,overlord,rush! (1995452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496443)

Get it. So it must be salt battery. Sugar, salt, when will they introduce vinegar into it?
Maybe next will be lactic acid bacteria, and then something bigger.
And at last there will be a human inside it...
Oh no, the matrix again.

Re:Uh ... No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496545)

If not the Lithium, what's the
expensive part then?

The cathode? It's Iron Phosphate, right?
Or maybe the electrolyte? Diethyl Carbonate sounds dead-simple to synthesize.

What's left?

what about the thorium ...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41495847)

battery..............
(come on dude where are you chiming in????)

Ah, that's a new reason to.... (3, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#41495917)

....stick your tongue on a nine volt battery...

Careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496303)

One minute you're putting sugar in the oven at 1500 degrees, the next the stay-puft marshmallow man is leveling half of New York City

Mac OS X Li-Ion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496397)

5, Funny.

Yuo fail it]!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496429)

prima donnas, and clai8 that BSD is a [amazingkreskin.c0m] legitimise doing

shanghai shunky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496435)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.crusher007.com
http://www.sand-making-machine.com
http://www.china-impact-crusher.com
http://www.cnshunky.com
http://www.bestssj.com
http://www.shunkyen.com
http://www.crusheren.com
http://www.crusher02.com
http://www.portablecrusherplant.net
http://www.csconecrusher.com

awesome! (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496499)

and when battery stops working, you don't throw it away, you just eat it

Sounds like how I bake (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41496533)

"sucrose powder is turned into hard carbon powder by heating it to up to 1,500 degrees celsius in an oxygen-free oven."

Sounds exactly like my cooking.

Coal is cheaper to use as a source of carbon (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | more than 2 years ago | (#41496763)

Coal is significantly cheaper to use as a source of carbon than sugar is, whether you buy it by the short ton (2000 pounds) as a big ol' company, or at the local Bi-Lo or grocery store.

A ton of sugar would cost a lot more than a ton of coal. [mongabay.com] http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/sugar.html [mongabay.com] . The amount of coal is so abundant still that the market price of it is lower than the cost of raising sugar-cane or sugar-beets and refining them into sugar.

a ton of coal costs from $30 per 2000 lbs in Y2K upto $150 per 2000 lbs in the year 2008, and about $30-$50 per ton in May of 2012.

a ton of sugar would cost about $600 with the world price of sugar at less than 60 cents per kilogram.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?