You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

passive_fist comments on [LINK] Waitbutwhy article on the history and future of space exploration, SpaceX and more - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: LizzardWizzard 08 September 2015 11:14AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (26)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: passive_fist 09 September 2015 10:11:27PM 0 points [-]

Batteries win on energy per volume, but lose on energy per mass.

No, the issue is power density. Fuel cells win over batteries in terms of energy per mass but lose in terms of power per mass and power per volume. Fuel cells are still an order of magnitude or so behind batteries in terms of deliverable power. This is why they are best suited to applications that require power drain for an extended period of time without the possibility of recharging.

It's difficult to directly compare batteries and fuel cells, though, because in the fuel cell the actual fuel tank is separate from the electrodes and can be made as large as desired. In the limit of a very large fuel tank, huge energy densities of 20 MJ/kg or 15 MJ/L are possible with methanol. Compare this with about 1 MJ/kg for the best lithium-ion batteries. However, in the same limit, fuel cell power density drops to near zero.