I haven't managed to get rid of info which bundles in the rest of the components of a lithium air battery, but I have dug out the theoretical density of a lithium air battery:

' At a nominal potential of about 3 V, the theoretical specific energy for a lithium/air battery is over 5000 Wh kg−1 for the reaction forming lithium hydroxide (LiOH) (Li+1/4 O2+1/2 H2O=LiOH) and 11 000 Wh kg−1 for the reaction forming lithium peroxide (Li2O2) (Li+O2=Li2O2) or for the reaction of lithium with dissolved oxygen in seawater, rivaling the energy density for hydrocarbon fuel cells and far exceeding Li-ion battery chemistry that has a theoretical specific energy of about 400 Wh kg−1'

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444527455001842

Taking the figure for lithium peroxide formation, which seems to be the apposite one and the reaction @sd is referring to, then since the limit is the amount of lithium then 1200Wh/kg/11,000Wh/kg is of the order of a tenth of the weight of the battery being pure lithium when fully charged.

So taking @sd's figure of 3.667 times the weight when discharged, we come out to an increase in total battery weight of perhaps a third when fully discharged.

That is annoying when landing an aircraft, since with gasolene fuel burn an aircraft is now lighter when landing, but sounds very manageable.

Typically the energy density reckoned needed to be really useful for aircraft is of the order of 600-800Wh/kg

Even using the figures for the battery in a discharged state, this looks like it would hit or beat that, so enormous potential.

We still won't be flying transatlantic in a battery powered plane, but for regional even with fairly substantial aircraft it is hopeful that this could do the job.

A substantial analysis of lithium air batteries here:

https://www.electronicsforu.com/technology-trends/lithium-air-batteries-replace-lithium-ion-batteries-in-evs

Of note regarding Argonne's use of a ceramic polymer separator:

' Ceramic electrolytes like LAGP/LATP have been closer to commercial applications. However, several crucial issues still remain as obstacles to their practical application. Although the lithium-ion conductivity of the ceramic electrolyte is quite high and the interfacial impedance between the particles in the ceramic sheet can be minimised, the interface contact and interface compatibility of the ceramic and the electrode are challenging.

It is well known that achieving intimate solid-to-solid contact is extremely vital but also extremely difficult to achieve. Poor solid-to-solid contact commonly results in high interface resistance and the formation of lithium dendrites. In addition, it is very difficult for ceramic sheets to be defect-free, which also results in dendrite formation. Therefore, resolving interface issues is critical for the performance of ceramic electrolyte.

For better physical contact, introducing an alloy layer between the electrolyte and lithium metal or depositing the electrolyte material and the cathode material together are effective. The combination of ceramic electrolyte and polymer electrolyte is also a method to improve the interface engineering. Polymers are more liquid-like than ceramics and solid-liquid contact has inherent advantages over solid-solid contact. However, as the ionic conductivity of polymer electrolyte is lower than ceramic, it is important to find a balance point between the ratio of these two components.'

Some of the other issues mentioned include difficulties in adequately filtering the air to exclude moisture and other contaminents, which they specifically mention in a mobile setting, and dendrite formation, which has presumably been adequately dealt with by Argonne since they have hit 1,000 cycles.

Very, very hopeful stuff, but I don't expect them in cars by Thursday week! ;-)

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/lithium-air-batteries-market.html

They reckon here that the total chemical costs of lithium air batteries is 1/30th that of lithium ion, which is not only handy in itself but must indicate that little or no rare or scarce elements are needed.

I would like to see more specific info on the Argonne battery constituents.

Assembly is also another issue, as the study I linked above on lithium air indicated that the separator can perhaps be tricky.

Mentioned here is the propensity of lithium to also react with nitrogen in the air:

https://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/group1/reacto2.html

How that is prevented or to be prevented in the Argonne cell is not clear, or how complicated such isolation would be.

Using these on a plane presents an interesting problem never before encountered in 120 years of powered flight: the plane will land considerably heavier than when it took off!

I look at the car question as one of a 500 kg budget to move a reasonably large vehicle 300 miles between refills. Gasoline also has 1.2 kWh/kg energy density, but it has a sunk "cost" of ~350 kg of engine/transmission and some more for damping NVH, which even a very good engine uses 60% of the fuel to generate . A 200 hp electric motor/transmission (with way less NVH) is more on lines of 100 kg. So taking a conservative 3 miles/kWh, 100 kg of battery, even if it swells to 380 kg leaves you within the weight budget.

@Albert E Short

I think a decimal point has misbehaved for you! ;-)
I have gasoline here at 12.7kWh/kg, not 1.2KWh/kg:

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml

@Davemart - you are correct, I had a confirmation bias incident where the article said 'similar energy density to gasoline'; so when I saw 12200 as the kWh/kg I subconsciously dropped the zero and went with it. Later in the bar, I thought that can't be right since I knew ~ 35 KWh/gallon was the density of gasoline but you had already caught it.

In any case, the point stands that even that gaudy order-of-magnitude-higher energy density of gasoline vs this advanced battery is not all that relevant in the weight budget of a reasonably sized car going 300 miles between fill-ups.

This is an exciting development. Given the talent, resources and time expended in pursuit of progress in the area at Argonne, not surprising they would ultimately achieve this kind of breakthrough. Bravo to Kondori, Amine at al for their determination and perseverance.

Given the theoretical capacity of the materials, methodical modern scientific methods of discovery (molecular simulation, visualization like TEM described above) and the substantial financial resources applied to this research as a national imperative, it has seemed to me to be an inevitable outcome. No doubt it is a milestone on a path that will continue indefinitely until the next inflection point with an entirely different technology.

Ever since BEVs established their dominance as the successor to petroleum, the financial incentives became so big that continued research and development of high energy batteries are a certainty.

At some point well before 100% ZEV mandates take effect, the demand for ICE cars will begin a steep decline because their resale value will diminish rapidly. Who will want an ICE if you can purchase a 1,000 mile BEV that needs to be charged only once a month? (Or a cheaper 500 mile BEV that can be charged once every two weeks, etc, etc).

Many parking lots have solar canopies now, it seems like that will be de rigueur soon. The price of solar fuel will find its floor soon enough.

The OEM laggards will have a much more difficult time managing the transition.

@electric car insider:

When I hear of the 'inevitable triumph' of this or that, I get quite nostalgic for the inevitable triumph of communism.....

I don't believe in superhuman certainty de haut en bas.

But if this can make it to economic mass production, and at the moment we are on a few cells on a workbase position which in the case of li-on took many years to reach substantial production, then I am as enthusiastic as anyone, having for instance argued vigorously in favour of the Nissan Leaf when it was introduced.

I think this is likely to be way quicker, but there are never, never guarantees.

To ask the question another way:

I am not sure that aside from possible errors in calculation, whether my methodology of trying to determine the theoretical energy of the lithium to L2O reaction and taking that as showing the weight of the lithium which then puts on weight in its conversion to L2O is as sound as it appears, or if other factors I have not thought of come into play. so for instance perhaps as the amount of Li converted to LiO2 increases, then the reaction gradually decreases, so in practise the effecgtive amount of lithium for conversion is less than theoretical, hence the weight increase would be less.

Hey, guys, I am punching way above my weight here!

Help!

@peskanov

Just so.

Unless I have got totally confused though, which is always possible and what I am trying to check, then a higher amount of lithium, unused, would mean that the total weight increase of the pack would be lower, not higher.

So kicking on from @sd's interesting comment that lithium air batteries have an increase on discharge:

' ' a lithium air battery that starts with 1000 lbs of lithium, you end up with 3667 lbs of lithium oxide (6 + 16 = 22 and 22/6 = 3.667). Possible for trucks but a real problem for aircraft. '

At the pack level I am suggesting that the overall increase in weight is around 30%, if that.

Which is pretty manageable, compared at least to what looks on the face of it like a prohibitative 3.667 factor.

We are told that this tech should be able to manage 1200Wh/kg, which even allowing for such an increase in weight on discharge and also for deterioration over 1,000 cycles down to presumably the standard 80% capacity stays well within the envelope for substantial flight capability.

And of course is several times better than current lithium ion batteries.