Comment by GlibMonkeyDeath

9 hours ago

The article gives the technical reasons that answer the headline question (e.g. potential for better energy density)

I am surprised they didn't point out the literal "killer app" - military drones. Energy density is king for any airborne power source. And dendrite growth during charge/discharge cycling isn't as big a deal for that application (how many times would you need to charge a disposable weapon?)

For disposable applications like that, aren't there single-use chemistries that are better already? I'm thinking by analogy to things like:

- WW2 proximity fuzes that had batteries where the electrolyte was in a vial that got smashed by the G-forces of being shot out of a cannon providing power to the radio inside for the 10 seconds it needs to get to the incoming aircraft

- Hearing aid Zinc-Air batteries, that are extremely energy dense because you only have to actually manufacture the anode, the cathode is the entire atmosphere of the Earth

- Missile batteries, which are often Lithium-silicon/Iron Disulfide batteries that borrow some thermal energy from the rocket motor to get a molten salt electrolyte

  • Not all drones are one way

    • Even for drones that are reusable: if there’s a substantial performance advantage to using a primary cell then you might just want to do that if you’re relatively price insensitive and have good logistics (say, the US Army). Or if you need to be self-sustaining in non-permissive environments (say, the US Army).

If the thing is going to blow up anyway, does it need to be light? Wouldn't you rather have more cheaper drones?

  • Less weight (all else being equal) is the same thing as more battery for drones. I.e. better range, payload mass, and/or flight time. You probably want both cheap and poor performing as well as expensive and high performing available.

    • In current battle conditions isn’t the range primarily determined by the size of the fiber optic spool attached to the drone than battery capacity?

      7 replies →