Talk:Zinc–bromine battery
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| Specific energy | {{{EtoW}}} |
|---|---|
| Energy density | {{{EtoS}}} |
Energy Density
[edit]Currently the Article source-lessly expresses "Zinc-bromine batteries have energy densities of 75 to 85 Wh/kg." The Only Battery example given has however a 34.4Wh/kg (50kWh/3200lb). So the given Rating is +200% better that the only example the article gives. I'm changing it to 34.4 but it can be changed back if anyone can give a source or reasoning behind this. Larek (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I Found where "75 to 85 Wh/kg" has been printed in several white papers, And I think may have originated from the Manufacture originally. But it never hurt to check you math. According to Energy_density#True_energy_densities "energy density of a complete system, including all required external components", This "flow" battery has pumps and tanks etc, so one complete functional DC battery (108V) weighs 3200lb (1451.49kg) and stores 50kWh -> 34.4 Wh/kg
- I could not find most of the template's specs directly but I did find the required values to calculate them.
- Energy/size = 50kWh / (84"x48"x48") = 50kWh / 193 536 in^3 = 50kWh / 3171.48682L = 15.7
- Charge/discharge efficiency = 150MW/214MW (for 30 units) =.7
- Energy/consumer-price = $600,000 USD / 30 units / 50kWh each = $20,000 / 50,000Wh = $.4/Wh = 4¢
- Nominal Cell Voltage = The Production battery uses 3 stacks in parallel, Each stack is 60 cells in series and each stack has an Open Circuit Voltage of 108 = 108v/60cells = 1.8V/cell
- The potential is .76V + 1.087v = 1.847v (in a perfect world), So I don't know where 1.67v is coming from.141.219.144.60 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Zinc Bromine Gel battery
[edit]The gel battery description in the lede and the section for it strikes me as sounding a bit like advertising copy. I don't have time now to watch the 30 minute video that is cited as a source, but I suggest someone consider if the current wording is ok. —Salton Finneger (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)