Here is an example of vapourware that is about to become a demonstration prototype but not necessarily ever a product.
It seems to tick lots of boxes BEV’s do not with the exception of products on market and bandwagoning. The best technology doesn’t always win, first to attain critical mass usually does.
It is tantalising regardless of how it goes or doesn’t.
A big step change in ‘flow cell’ technology.
Two useful reference links.
And existing commercial flow batteries, RedFflow Australia being one.
The first suggests the technology uses materials and resources that are readily available in any country? It’s a useful comparison for the existing commercialised flow cell products, (different technologies) see the second link.
There’s insufficient detail released for the experts to offer a reliable financial comparison. The promise of a more compact and energy dense fuel source that can suit transport needs is a good starting point.
Interesting. The chemistry about redox flow batteries has been known and explored for a long time. I believe there were even demonstrator cars in the 1970’s.
Could be a threat to hydrogen fuel cells, which in my non expert opinion will turn out to be a dead end for transport uses due to problems in producing it and storing it.
There are reports the nano fuel cell manufacturing costs are in the order if EURO600
If this is the case, and since the (salt) solution should be relatively cheap to produce, if the hype meets reality, it will be a game changer and significantly cheaper than HFC or BEV cars.
There are reports that to get 2000km range, it requires 200-300L of solution. A lot of weight to carry around but significantly less than a battery pack with quarter/third of the range.
The one off prototype they have been testing since 2016/7 is reported to cost US1M. But, with mass production and if the power unit is cheap to manufacture like the claims being made, then it is a technology worth watching.
Reports are it costs US0.10/quart to produce…
MotorBiscuit ended their observations on a cautious note, slightly sceptical?
And being seven years from this breakthrough technology, one would think there would be far more coverage of their findings. So after all of these years, there is still only minimal information available.
One can understand a break through step in flow battery technology to be well protected. The suggested costs come from the developer, which some will see as marketing optimism. Are there any independent motoring tests of the prototype vehicle?
I can’t get this old story out of my mind.
Prototype vehicles are rarely test driven by motoring writers etc. This includes the larger manufacturers such as Toyota through to small niche manufacturers. The same applies to other consumer products where prototypes are produced. The reason this is done is prototypes may not reflect the specifications of the final product sold to consumer or may have commercial ‘secrets’ they don’t won’t their competitors to get their hands on, reducing the competitive advantage at release of the product to consumers if a competitor ‘gazumps’ some of the features of the new product.
Prototypes are also usually imperfect models to allow testing and to for tooling/production line purposes. As a neighbour who was a leading industrial designer for a leading multinational appliance manufacture has said to me, from prototyping to full production can take considerable time. Some products can take many years, especially if the technology is new as things like longevity etc or there are design/technology issues that need ironing out.
It appears from a number of different sources online that they have shown the functional prototype at some trade shows and it has been subject to testing. Being a car, one would expect a long testing timeframe before any thought of commercialisation as consumer expect cars to have long lives, usually of a decade or more. Testing longevity and sorting our ‘bugs’ for new technologies could be expected to take considerable time. Another neighbour whose son used to work for design with Holden said that from design - prototype - commercial production can take good part of a decade. When a new vehicle model is released, work has already commenced on the next body change model.
It is worth noting that nanoFlowCell is a nano flow cell researcher and developer, not a car company. They have indicated that they have moved into the US market which may be a stepping stone for vehicle production or partnering with an existing vehicle manufacture (and future investment opportunities).
However, with new technologies, some never make it to the market place (due to expense, need not substantiated, product liabilities, unable to obtain investment etc), some enter the market place but have short lives (Beta VCRs is a good example or products which are proven to be duds/lemons) or quickly dominate and in the short to medium term change the direction of consumer market (Dyson and Telsa are possibly examples of this - Dyson being bagless and Telsa effective in lobbying governments to support their battery EV technologies). Even Tesla took 6-7 years to get it’s first battery EV into production (even more if one thinks the work of GM which was used as a leaping board into Telsa).
Whether the nano flow cell technology gets into a vehicle production in the future is still unknown but information available indicates the technology could be used in vehicle and has longevity. It appears promising from all reports, but, it will need significant investment to get to the next stage, that being in a production vehicle ready for sale.
I’m equally interested and curious about the prospects. The future is in need of a step change in battery technology to more rapidly decarbonise and reduce the costs.
It’s useful to consider that for prototype testing of new technology it is often built into existing chassis. It assists with speeding up development and proving the core components. For a flow cell powered vehicle of the type described it would seem a small step to have chosen any one of a number of nondescript chassis, ICE, BEV or other. It’s one way to avoid undue scrutiny, and more cost effective?
An interesting report from 6 years back offers some insight to some of the technical aspects of the design.
Or not depending on one’s electrical knowledge of motors and power control.
Progress?
‘https://topgear-autoguide.com/category/traffic/quant-48volt-e-sports-car-with-760-hp1607107110
There are many interesting design questions from torque steer to traction control. Details a more conventional single or dual motor design may not find so challenging to manage.
An interesting alternate application.
For many households does the developer’s expected low cost of the fuel and flow cell spell the end of the grid as we know it? Going off the grid could be as simple as a once per week drop off of several hundred litres of electrolyte. Or for Solar homes a cheap backup generator in place of expensive hydrocarbon fuel options.
Might be OK for anyone who prefers to nearly run a car out of energy, before filling up a couple of timed a week from a company or two that decide on the price of the liquid (in this casr, the “bi-ION” electrolyte).
Other people might be crazy enough to decide to make do with a fully-charged car every day. 
That might work in a city but have you ever tried to go cross country (eg Sydney to Alice or Melbourne to Adelaide, etc) with a ‘fully charged BEV every morning’? If everyone had one with the same expectations the overnight stay would be a sleepless night awaiting one’s turn on the charger - if there was one. If there were multiple drivers (and no overnight stay) the charge time could be a most unwelcome delay - it would require a cultural evolution for travellers and eventually truckers increasing prices yet again.
As for the price of ‘the liquid’ would you comment on the cost of electricity as it is not free either, and mostly in the hands of multinationals.
Isn’t that how it works with an ICE vehicle? It isn’t practical to leave home with a full tank every day.
How is that different from buying a tank of petrol or diesel, or a charge of electricity from companies that decide on the price of their product? If you are hinting bi-ion will be very expensive, it may be. But we don’t know that and that issue would best left until we have some facts.
All these alternate fuels have different profiles of availability, convenience, price, safety and other qualities, and these factors will change over time. Even if we know what the characteristics are now in some cases they will be different soon.
Wowsers trousers. I’m glad I’m not stuck with that sort of commuting! Unfortunately, since one can’t do anything else while driving, I regard it as “dead time”, and the less of it, the better. I am able to commute on foot, bicycle, or bus.
Also, where I live, 1kWh of electricity costs less than 30 cents. In contrast, 1kWh of petrol energy costs about 15 cents, but nearly all of it (75% to 85%) is wasted in a car engine, so you actually use about 5 times as much energy from setting fire to petrol to make a 2-tonne car move
That’s how it was for my grand parents. One walked to the tram stop, and likely lit up a calming ‘rollie’ of Capstan on the way to work. The reverse on the way home with the evening Telegraph, and half sized sheets for a quick read. The other built the family home 200m walk from their pharmacy business. A quiet stroll with well lit cigar to aid enjoyment of the fresh country air, coal smoke and soot from the nearby railway station weather dependant.
For many that’s not how it is today. The next best option is a low carbon personal vehicle.
Note that the NanoFlowCell product design details provided by the developer indicates it discharges the waste as the electrolyte is consumed. The description of refuelling implies it is adding electrolyte to replace consumption, at any time in the cycle. Similar to topping up an ICE when the tank is half full.
An off forum discussion reminded me of the prior mention of the Sarich Orbital Engine and Pritchard Steam Car. Both are alternatives to the venerable ICE albeit in different ways. Each succumbed to history, each with conspiracy theorists as to why.
It has transformed, awaiting further financial interest?
The combustion of bio waste and fuels is typically classed as a renewable resource. Some extend that to include intentional use of forestry products including bamboo, soft and hardwood plantation.
