<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ancient Red Plant Dye Powers New Green Batteries</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/12/ancient-red-plant-dye-powers-new-green-batteries/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/12/ancient-red-plant-dye-powers-new-green-batteries/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 06:27:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: benwelgoed</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/12/ancient-red-plant-dye-powers-new-green-batteries/#comment-143472</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[benwelgoed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=46006#comment-143472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now they &#039;only&#039; need a plant-based substitute for Lithium.  Granted, there is a fair amount of lithium around, it is present in most everything after all, but always as a trace element.  That then makes Lithium extraction  production highly energy intensive.  Therefore it&#039;s questionable one should ever use phrasing such as &#039;an environmentally friendly lithium battery&#039;.  And, putting a &#039;clean&#039; label on the battery will guarantee the trashcan to become their home to rest.  Not horrible except for the lithium supply being scarce and its production an energy sinkhole.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now they &#8216;only&#8217; need a plant-based substitute for Lithium.  Granted, there is a fair amount of lithium around, it is present in most everything after all, but always as a trace element.  That then makes Lithium extraction  production highly energy intensive.  Therefore it&#8217;s questionable one should ever use phrasing such as &#8216;an environmentally friendly lithium battery&#8217;.  And, putting a &#8216;clean&#8217; label on the battery will guarantee the trashcan to become their home to rest.  Not horrible except for the lithium supply being scarce and its production an energy sinkhole.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Devereaux</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/12/ancient-red-plant-dye-powers-new-green-batteries/#comment-143469</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Devereaux]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=46006#comment-143469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those looking for more specifics:

&quot;The lithium batteries assembled using purpurin and chemically lithiated 
purpurin as working electrodes showed good charge/discharge 
characteristics with a reversible capacity of ~90 mAh/g.&quot;

This is at 50 cycles, c/20 rate, there is a fair amount of capacity loss in that first 50 cycles however, it starts at:

 &quot;A first discharge capacity of ~196 mAh/g is observed.&quot;

Greater then 50 cycles is not reported. Poor cycle life and poor specific power:

&quot;The discharge capacity of the first discharge cycle at a current rate of
 C/20 is much higher than that of C/10 and C/2. The decrease in specific
 capacity at higher current rates is due to poor electron conductivity 
of purpurin molecule.&quot;


Sorry guys, doesn&#039;t look like a winner at this point.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those looking for more specifics:</p>
<p>&#8220;The lithium batteries assembled using purpurin and chemically lithiated<br />
purpurin as working electrodes showed good charge/discharge<br />
characteristics with a reversible capacity of ~90 mAh/g.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is at 50 cycles, c/20 rate, there is a fair amount of capacity loss in that first 50 cycles however, it starts at:</p>
<p> &#8220;A first discharge capacity of ~196 mAh/g is observed.&#8221;</p>
<p>Greater then 50 cycles is not reported. Poor cycle life and poor specific power:</p>
<p>&#8220;The discharge capacity of the first discharge cycle at a current rate of<br />
 C/20 is much higher than that of C/10 and C/2. The decrease in specific<br />
 capacity at higher current rates is due to poor electron conductivity<br />
of purpurin molecule.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry guys, doesn&#8217;t look like a winner at this point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
