I think they are all ready on the roads and accepted now, yes they are subsidized now, that is so that a market is developed to sustain continued improvements.
This should bring the non-subsidized performance+driving cost/car_cost in line with ICE babies so that they have equivilent ROI.
The population centers that can get the most out of these vehicles are if you are near cheap hydropower sources NW, EW, Mountains, first vs just cost, (ex. coal)
Then if you drive stop and go or in the mountains then the regen has pay back on ROI.
Flat low milage average do not work to use regen and 2nd system to full extent needed to get all synergies working and ICE babies win on ROI.
any improvement in conductivity makes them suck less so even the poor idea of adding a pump to a battery still can be on the side of improving ROI via less, weight/batteies, Less # of batteries, less vehicle wheight-support. When the concept is grown outside of the battery to a storage system + battery then it can have even higher value. Fast charging is the holy grail, so pumping atomic slurry in and out of the vehicle vs. just recirculating it will add yet more value.
"I'll take 60 moles please"?
All the sizzle and just a hint of steak...
With EVs and this idea of electrolyte fluids - what is the energy density? Costs will vary (and drop) as the technology reaches scale, but miles per whatever will not change by much. Do I get 100 miles per recharge - and how long will that take? The technology is my career, but after the explanation it's all just "Oooh, Ahhh!" at the pretty fireworks. Facts, please.
Great idea ! BUT . .. ... I can get a good older car/truck converted to a 60 mile commuter locally here for $10,000.00. This makes approx. a $15,000.00 investment.
Until EV's get competitive price wise - i.e. $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 WITHOUT GOVERMENT SUBSIDY they aren't going to make inroads on the market.
A very interesting article. I think it explained that fuel cells, which would be the other way to rid electric cars of batteries and/or of internal combustion engines), are still somewhat delicate as well as expensive. But maybe this approach has potential (ha ha what a pun).
This looks like you pump fresh electrolyte through eletrodes. Like a battery where the eletcrolyte is constantly being refreshed. If you aren't using the current that wants to flow between the electrodes of the "reaction cell," presumably the electrolyte remains ionized.
Unfortunately, it still looks like the energy density is way too low. I insist that for electric cars to become real contenders, rather than just part-time oddities for the enthusiast/evangelist, we need to rid them of batteries. Battery technology isn't improving fast enough. Even this new idea, while it allows a fast "recharge" and should be relatively cheap, is still energy-challenged. You would still need to stop at a "gas station" very frequently, sounds like.
For longer ranges, either rapidly replaceable batteries or something like this pumped 'electron fuel' will be needed. No one is going to sit at a recharge station very long. My question would be: how do you keep those pesky electrons where you want them until releasing them in the battery?
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.