6 ms·

Graphene has a big advantage over them, although it is slow to deliver. New batteries or affordable fuel cells require breakthroughs in materials science, espec

Graphene has a big advantage over them, although it is slow to deliver. New batteries or affordable fuel cells require breakthroughs in materials science, especially in the case of fuel cells. Inventing novel, cheap, mass-produceable catalysts to replace something like platinum, or a novel battery chemistry is a monumental challenge. Graphene already exists, but the propeties of the material are complex, and affordable mass production at the desirable scale is prohibitively expensive. Still, it exists, it can be made and manipulated, but a lot of exploration into its properties remains. I’d expect Graphene to be useful with a couple of decades, possibly sooner, while I wouldn’t even venture a guess on breakthrough batteries or fuel cells.

ianai 8y ago
The solid state batteries from ionic materials (https://ionicmaterials.com/ https://ionicmaterials.com/) seem very promising in a quicker timeframe. Ie I could imagine them being able to fit a much higher density in the same volume given the stability of the material.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  First I’ve heard of this company, but some Google-Fu reveals a lot of reasons to trust your optimism. They apparently got a $3m ARPA-E grant as well, and are producing something that works through a range of temperatures without forming denrites. Plus an increase in energy density of 115Wh/kg, while increasing stability and safety, even to rupture. Wow!
joe_the_user 8y ago
It seems like graphene production at scale is something states should be putting money and resources into. It's the kind of thing much more amenable to a "new Manhattan Project" than something like AI.
- vkou 8y ago
  The Manhattan project had an immediate, predictable return to its funders of "It will let us kill a lot of fascists, really quickly." Cui bono? Who will benefit from the DOE sinking a billion tax dollars into building graphene fabs? Will that benefit be greater then sinking it into something else?
  - r00fus 8y ago
    > Who will benefit from the DOE sinking a billion tax dollars into building graphene fabs? Isn't that the answer that {your_country} should own these industries before China/Russia/etc does? Because you can bet China is investing. I know someone who used to be the general manager of a large Chinese manufacturing plant, and all he wanted to talk about was how graphene was/is/will change whatever industry/tech I discussed. From a US perspective, there's billions wasted on make-work programs (TSA) and corporate handouts and subsidies that would greatly increase the tax base and develop local markets by reinvesting instead into new tech.
    - vkou 8y ago
      What does it matter to me that Boeing is an American firm, owned by a bunch of international institutional investors, as opposed to a Korean one, owned by a bunch of international institutional investors? Is it because there used to be a Boeing factory in my town, before they moved all the jobs to somewhere cheaper? To put it another way - why should I care that a few private companies in {my_country} own these industries? Their owners aren't paying me dividends, I'm not going to pay for their R&D. If you want to sink this money into building a state-owned industry, where the profits are distributed between the people, sure, that's another story, we can talk about that. If not, appealing to nationalism is a poor motivator for me to fund your cottage industry. If you want my money, make me a shareholder. > From a US perspective, there's billions wasted on make-work programs (TSA) and corporate handouts and subsidies that would greatly increase the tax base and develop local markets by reinvesting instead into new tech. So, the solution is corporate handouts for industries that you like? Handouts for people growing corn, or groping your junk when you cross borders are bad, but handouts for people making graphene are good? (Unlike corn, the jury's still out on whether or not it will actually be useful. Maybe it's the next plastic. Maybe it's the next beanie baby. Maybe it's the next asbestos. It's too early to tell, and "Let's manufacture tonnes of it, before anyone has any use for it" is a solution in search of a problem.) I mean, sure, our current allocation of spending is probably not optimal[1]. I do think, that the onus is on you to demonstrate that sinking a billion dollars into building a graphene fab is better then sinking a billion dollars into killing fossil fuels, or shrinking classroom sizes, or providing free early-age child-care, or free flu shots[2], or any one of a dozen other things we should be doing[3]. [1] To be fair, I am 100% certain it is not optimal. [2] http://info.totalwellnesshealth.com/blog/bid/190040/How-to-Measure-the-Value-of-On-Site-Flu-Shots http://info.totalwellnesshealth.com/blog/bid/190040/How-to-M... - The ROI of a flu shot is >200%. [3] Not to mention that a lot of the time, being the first mover in an industry is unnecessary. Let someone else figure out if something is worth doing. If its that important, a sovereign state can always catch up, and develop a local industry, through incentives and tariffs - once the field is proven.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > It seems like graphene production at scale is something states should be putting money and resources into. They do. https://polska.pl/science/achievements-science/graphene-production-kicks-poland/ https://polska.pl/science/achievements-science/graphene-prod... They created a company that does it, and you can buy graphene from them. https://www.graphene-info.com/nano-carbon https://www.graphene-info.com/nano-carbon Turns out there are lots of different kinds of graphene, and despite all the hype - the demand for the kind we can produce at the current prices - just isn't that big.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Turns out there are lots of different kinds of graphene, and despite all the hype - the demand for the kind we can produce at the current prices - just isn't that big. As I recall, this is because what can be produced at scale today is, to speak, crap. Authentic, reasonably pure, graphene has all sorts of amazing properties when created in labs but you have these companies producing more or less junk that doesn't get any larger-scale production going. In ways, "starting a company" to produce graphene now has been the source of a lot of the problem. Scientists attempting to apply graphene results wind-up buying junk graphene and failing. The point of large scale state investment over time, not dependent on immediately making money, is to get beyond these problems. There's the risk that even a lot of spending won't get you a way of producing good graphene at scale - well that's the risk. State finance is all about being the way such large-scale risk can be taken.
    - cosmie 8y ago
      This. There was a paper published recently[1], and a writeup in Nature[2] about it, which tested 60 different suppliers of graphene and found virtually all of them were junk and didn't match the ISO definition of graphene (i.e. 10 or fewer layers of atoms). [1] https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201803784 https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201803784 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06939-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06939-4
      - ajuc 8y ago

ianai 8y ago

The solid state batteries from ionic materials (https://ionicmaterials.com/ https://ionicmaterials.com/) seem very promising in a quicker timeframe. Ie I could imagine them being able to fit a much higher density in the same volume given the stability of the material.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
First I’ve heard of this company, but some Google-Fu reveals a lot of reasons to trust your optimism. They apparently got a $3m ARPA-E grant as well, and are producing something that works through a range of temperatures without forming denrites. Plus an increase in energy density of 115Wh/kg, while increasing stability and safety, even to rupture. Wow!

joe_the_user 8y ago

It seems like graphene production at scale is something states should be putting money and resources into. It's the kind of thing much more amenable to a "new Manhattan Project" than something like AI.

vkou 8y ago
The Manhattan project had an immediate, predictable return to its funders of "It will let us kill a lot of fascists, really quickly." Cui bono? Who will benefit from the DOE sinking a billion tax dollars into building graphene fabs? Will that benefit be greater then sinking it into something else?
- r00fus 8y ago
  > Who will benefit from the DOE sinking a billion tax dollars into building graphene fabs? Isn't that the answer that {your_country} should own these industries before China/Russia/etc does? Because you can bet China is investing. I know someone who used to be the general manager of a large Chinese manufacturing plant, and all he wanted to talk about was how graphene was/is/will change whatever industry/tech I discussed. From a US perspective, there's billions wasted on make-work programs (TSA) and corporate handouts and subsidies that would greatly increase the tax base and develop local markets by reinvesting instead into new tech.
  - vkou 8y ago
    What does it matter to me that Boeing is an American firm, owned by a bunch of international institutional investors, as opposed to a Korean one, owned by a bunch of international institutional investors? Is it because there used to be a Boeing factory in my town, before they moved all the jobs to somewhere cheaper? To put it another way - why should I care that a few private companies in {my_country} own these industries? Their owners aren't paying me dividends, I'm not going to pay for their R&D. If you want to sink this money into building a state-owned industry, where the profits are distributed between the people, sure, that's another story, we can talk about that. If not, appealing to nationalism is a poor motivator for me to fund your cottage industry. If you want my money, make me a shareholder. > From a US perspective, there's billions wasted on make-work programs (TSA) and corporate handouts and subsidies that would greatly increase the tax base and develop local markets by reinvesting instead into new tech. So, the solution is corporate handouts for industries that you like? Handouts for people growing corn, or groping your junk when you cross borders are bad, but handouts for people making graphene are good? (Unlike corn, the jury's still out on whether or not it will actually be useful. Maybe it's the next plastic. Maybe it's the next beanie baby. Maybe it's the next asbestos. It's too early to tell, and "Let's manufacture tonnes of it, before anyone has any use for it" is a solution in search of a problem.) I mean, sure, our current allocation of spending is probably not optimal[1]. I do think, that the onus is on you to demonstrate that sinking a billion dollars into building a graphene fab is better then sinking a billion dollars into killing fossil fuels, or shrinking classroom sizes, or providing free early-age child-care, or free flu shots[2], or any one of a dozen other things we should be doing[3]. [1] To be fair, I am 100% certain it is not optimal. [2] http://info.totalwellnesshealth.com/blog/bid/190040/How-to-Measure-the-Value-of-On-Site-Flu-Shots http://info.totalwellnesshealth.com/blog/bid/190040/How-to-M... - The ROI of a flu shot is >200%. [3] Not to mention that a lot of the time, being the first mover in an industry is unnecessary. Let someone else figure out if something is worth doing. If its that important, a sovereign state can always catch up, and develop a local industry, through incentives and tariffs - once the field is proven.
ajuc 8y ago
> It seems like graphene production at scale is something states should be putting money and resources into. They do. https://polska.pl/science/achievements-science/graphene-production-kicks-poland/ https://polska.pl/science/achievements-science/graphene-prod... They created a company that does it, and you can buy graphene from them. https://www.graphene-info.com/nano-carbon https://www.graphene-info.com/nano-carbon Turns out there are lots of different kinds of graphene, and despite all the hype - the demand for the kind we can produce at the current prices - just isn't that big.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Turns out there are lots of different kinds of graphene, and despite all the hype - the demand for the kind we can produce at the current prices - just isn't that big. As I recall, this is because what can be produced at scale today is, to speak, crap. Authentic, reasonably pure, graphene has all sorts of amazing properties when created in labs but you have these companies producing more or less junk that doesn't get any larger-scale production going. In ways, "starting a company" to produce graphene now has been the source of a lot of the problem. Scientists attempting to apply graphene results wind-up buying junk graphene and failing. The point of large scale state investment over time, not dependent on immediately making money, is to get beyond these problems. There's the risk that even a lot of spending won't get you a way of producing good graphene at scale - well that's the risk. State finance is all about being the way such large-scale risk can be taken.
  - cosmie 8y ago
    This. There was a paper published recently[1], and a writeup in Nature[2] about it, which tested 60 different suppliers of graphene and found virtually all of them were junk and didn't match the ISO definition of graphene (i.e. 10 or fewer layers of atoms). [1] https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201803784 https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201803784 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06939-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06939-4
    - ajuc 8y ago