Our relationship with lithium-ion batteries is a rather unstable "love-hate" affair. Thanks to them, mobile devices are very compact and can deliver high performance; however, their natural limitations force us to explore other solutions. One very interesting technology is the zinc-air combination, but its batteries are very difficult to recharge. This brings us to the University of Sydney, where a group of researchers developed a series of new low-cost catalysts, giving rise to cheap rechargeable batteries with minimal efficiency loss.
Unless you want to carry a heavier alternative with lower energy density, the most convenient option to power your mobile devices is a lithium-ion battery. The market is full of models, they are easy to recharge, and their applications are numerous... but they don't have such a clean record. In the past we have seen the consequences of their explosive temper, something Samsung experienced firsthand with the Galaxy Note 7 incident (now refurbished under the Galaxy Note Fan Edition brand), and several airlines have banned the transport of lithium batteries, or impose restrictions based on their capacity. In other words, there is great industry interest in developing a safer battery with superior performance. That is where zinc-air technology comes in.
Zinc-Air Batteries: An Alternative to Lithium-Ion
Zinc-air batteries are not something that will appear in twenty years. In fact, they are already available for hearing aids and other personal accessories, but the drawback is that they present a gigantic challenge to recharge them. The only viable options require extremely costly catalysts based on platinum and iridium oxide during their manufacture, though that is about to change.
A recent study published by researchers from the University of Sydney and Nanyang Technological University explores the development of a new group of bifunctional electrocatalysts (oxygen reduction and generation) made from abundant elements such as iron, cobalt, and nickel. The key lies in the precise control of their production, dividing it into three factors: size, composition, and crystallization.
Laboratory tests report batteries subjected to a total of 60 charge-discharge cycles, each lasting 120 hours. The efficiency loss in the batteries was around 10 percent. That places them a step below their lithium-ion siblings, but the information suggests they could store up to five times more energy, without associated risks. Are we ready for a battery that can only be recharged 60 times and lasts five times longer? It all depends on how those 120 hours translate to "real use", and of course, on the price on the shelves.
