Samsung is working on a graphene battery that charges five times faster

#5495858 Posted on: 11/27/2017 05:00 PM

---

I know, i have zero complaints with how fast my LG G6 charges with a fast charger.

Bought a $9 charge stand for it, plugged it into my fast charger and it's awesome. Almost as nice as wireless charging.

This could be good for laptops and tablets I think.

#5495859 Posted on: 11/27/2017 05:06 PM

---

Be great for electric cars and buses, or hybrid petrol electric vehicles.

#5495860 Posted on: 11/27/2017 05:07 PM

---

As someone who has put a lot of research into graphene, I am legitimately excited and sincerely hope Samsung succeeds in finding a cost-effective way to mass-produce graphene batteries. The faster charging is merely a side effect of the many miraculous features of graphene. I personally will not buy an electric (or hybrid) car until one comes with a graphene battery, assuming it doesn't cost as much as a small house. But as soon as one is available, I'm going to be first in line.

Looking at the diagram, it looks like their graphene is very impure, which I find discouraging. It's supposed to be 1-atom thick, so the fact they show it being thicker than the cathode and substrate while also being lumpy isn't a good sign. But, even if it's a third as good as it should be, it's still way better than Li-Ion could ever be.

#5495861 Posted on: 11/27/2017 05:08 PM

---

This is not just about phones...

Imagine the future:
- Self driving cars, trucks, buses, etc.
- Walking robots ( think Atlas or Big Dog )
- Transport pods that go on a pipe (or in it !?)
- Flying machines ( drones ) that could go for hours before charging, they would just land on a charging station 10 minutes and go back in air for more hours
- Other portable/wearable devices that could charge ultra-fast when close enough to a power source

The idea is that at some point we'll simply forget about charging. Devices and vechicles will charge by themselves wirelessly (or by shallow contact) when close to power sources without the user ever having to worry about "plugging them in".

To make this future possible we need new battery tech... which, to be honest, currently it SUCKS. Low capacity/volume or weight, prone to exploding, unstable, doesn't last long...
Fossil fuels have 10 times higher power density than current batteries, no wonder electric cars aren't yet mainstream.

#5495865 Posted on: 11/27/2017 05:17 PM

---

For twenty years its been graphene this and that....
Still not one product.
I'll believe this hype train when they have a WORKING prototype. And its independently confirmed.
Until then it's pure BS Samsung.

#5495869 Posted on: 11/27/2017 05:33 PM

---

For twenty years its been graphene this and that....
Still not one product.
I'll believe this hype train when they have a WORKING prototype. And its independently confirmed.
Until then it's pure BS Samsung.
Graphene has been proven a long time ago (with working prototypes) to be better than all existing battery and supercapacitor technologies in almost every way. The only problem has been finding a cost-effective way to mass-produce it. Even though it can be made at home using cheap equipment, the material needed is extremely expensive.

But, I do see what you mean. Graphene batteries have pretty much never been available outside of labs so Samsung is making a very bold claim here. However, Samsung is pretty much the only company with the money, resources (including researchers and facilities), and interest to accomplish this. Companies like Intel or IBM have the money and resources, but not the interest. Companies like Tesla Motors or Duracell probably have the resources and interest, but not the money. Companies Google/Motorola has the money and interest, but probably not the resources.

#5495902 Posted on: 11/27/2017 06:27 PM

---

Personally I don't care if it's gonna charge 3x, 5x faster comparet to curent Li-Ion or Li-Polymer batteries: all I want is huge improvement regarding battery autonomy, not like now when I need to charge my phone and tablet every 2 days (3 days if I'm not usig them much). Guess I'm a bit spoiled with my old (stolen by unkown idiot some 16 years ago) Nokia 5110 with aftermarket Li-ion 1100mAh (or it was 1300, maybe even 1400) battery: 7 day of average use with hour or two talk-time EVERY SINGLE DAY, and God knows how many times that battery lasted even 10 days, more than once I couldn't find charger for it because couldn't remember where I've put it 7, 8, 9 days ago lol. "Charge and forget" is all I want from batteries used in my mobile devices, but I'm gonna wait a bit till it happens

#5495909 Posted on: 11/27/2017 06:46 PM

---

Well, graphene does offer the huge improvement you're looking for, and more.

As for phones with long-lasting batteries, they still exist, but not where people are looking. If you buy a phone with power-hungry processor(s), a high-res screen, and a very thin battery, of course you're going to lose out. If you keep all the radios on, have a bunch of apps running in the background, or keep the screen at full brightness, you're going to dramatically lower battery life. For my old phone, GPS alone could bring the battery down to 40% after one night. With GPS off, it just went down to 95%. Many people I know keep everything on.

I have some cheap $40 phone (MSRP) where the battery will last 3 days with extensive use, 5 days of moderate use, and a full week if only shooting a few texts here and there. It's maybe a mm or two fatter than modern phones. It's a real piece of junk, but it's been more reliable than the high-end stuff that Motorola, Samsung, Apple, HTC, etc release. For me, a phone should be nothing more than a tool I can depend on, not an extension of myself or my hobbies.

#5495911 Posted on: 11/27/2017 07:00 PM

---

About electric cars...*cough* I've seen more than one estimate of the massive increase in nuclear and coal-fired plants world-wide that would have to be built (that do not exist today) to accommodate a universe of electric cars displacing petrol-based vehicles---not to mention that huge mass charging stations would have to be built that are at least as numerous as gas stations are today. The power requirements for 100% electric vehicle use are staggering. 99 out of every 100 people who think that electric cars sound wonderful are people who do not own and use electric cars, presently... I'm a big fan of nuclear power, myself, for all of the obvious reasons, but until battery technology improves by at least an order of magnitude you can forget about electric cars--about as likely to proliferate universally as the Jetson's Flying Cars and their cities in the clouds... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on "self-driving" cars, either--right now all that is, is investor bait, and it's not even very "tasty" bait, either. Unless the idea of sharing the road with non-sentient drivers that literally can't discern a meaningful difference between a child and a tree-limb on the road appeals to you...

#5495912 Posted on: 11/27/2017 07:14 PM

---

Said like a guy clinging to his horse while the world drives around you. Imagine a world where we just don't have gasoline cars, we ride around in buggies, because everyone complained about having to build tens of thousands of miles of pipelines and 150,000 gas stations in the US alone.

Any parking spot at a location with power delivery can be converted into a charging station. Power generation isn't as big a problem as you want to think since most cars are charged overnight, when electricity demand is lowest. Regardless, this is a transformation that has to happen. There's no way around it. It is not sustainable to continue burning gasoline to move things back and forth, it has to be cleaner in every way, not least of which being CO2.

#5495916 Posted on: 11/27/2017 07:28 PM

---

I see what you mean, but when considering graphene batteries, you're ignoring some of the other benefits of it that would dramatically reduce the load on power infrastructure. For one thing, the power density is much higher than Li-Ion (roughly 5x higher, more depending on who you ask). A modern Tesla model S weighs over 2000kg/4600Lbs - that's really heavy, and the powertrain makes up for roughly half that weight. If you were to just simply match the power density of the current battery with graphene, not only would you shave off over 400kg of just battery weight, but the structure compensating for that weight could also be reduced. This in turn would dramatically increase the efficiency of acceleration, and, make regenerative braking more useful in stopping the car. Not only that, but graphene doesn't combust when punctured or bent, and is more tolerant of higher temperatures. This further reduces the weight of the armor and cooling that current batteries need. A more efficient car will need to be plugged in less often.

Next, there is a lot of wasted energy charging Li-Ion, and even more for cars that still use Ni-Cd. Graphene wastes very little energy to recharge, and because of how quickly it recharges, the power infrastructure wouldn't be under such constant heavy load. Keep in mind the speed and efficiency at which graphene recharges also impacts regenerative braking - you'll get a lot more charge out of that than you can with current battery tech, which in turn reduces how much you need to depend on the grid.

At the very least, plug-in hybrids make for the best option in the future, until power grids become more capable.


Do you actually have any data on self-driving cars, or are you just speculating? Because so far, the only accidents they have been in were either caused by other humans (easily provable, considering many of them visually record the incidents) or, were blinded in ways that a human would also fail in.

#5495928 Posted on: 11/27/2017 08:17 PM

---

Graphene, the 2 decade old promise.
I do hope Samsung finally pulls this off because we desperately need better batteries.
Could care less about the charge time, although it's nice to have. The capacity is the big deal here, be it for mobile devices or cars, we need better batteries!

#5495934 Posted on: 11/27/2017 08:30 PM

---

Graphene keeps being amazing.

#5495938 Posted on: 11/27/2017 08:43 PM

---

Calling them graphene batteries would be like calling LED backlit monitors LED, which people do, but it's still LCD. You don't hear them calling older LCD monitors CCFL monitors.

It's still lithium batteries but enhanced with graphene, just like LCD monitors were enhanced with LED backlighting and later non-PWM LED backlighting. There are several other two dimensional lattice materials that may be suitable for such battery improvements as well. Tricky thing with graphene is it's mined from graphite, like lithium there are limitations to access and availability of cost competitive raw materials.

#5495952 Posted on: 11/27/2017 09:37 PM

---

But will it discharge as quickly as any other phone battery? I'd be more interested in a battery that holds charge longer than one that charges quicker.