A “miracle battery” is currently being described on many websites and various media that can supposedly take a vehicle 1500 miles (approx. 2400km).
The miracle battery is said to be an “aluminium-air battery”. A project that was put on hold but, according to media reports, was further developed by engineer Trevor Jackson.
Note at this point: We at Mimikama obviously do not have the battery and the results. We therefore cannot test the battery. Nevertheless, we can do an origin check on this story, because what so many media outlets report here ultimately only has a single source.
The “miracle battery” fact check
About the story: According to media reports, the British engineer Trevor Jackson spent 20 years tinkering and researching to give the principle of the aluminum-air battery, which had already been shelved, another chance. These batteries have a much higher energy density than conventional lithium-ion batteries and therefore a significantly longer range. You can drive a Tesla S for around 2,400 km.
But as it is written everywhere, they are not rechargeable. But Jackson has found a solution for this: you can easily replace them within 90 seconds, for example at a gas station. The old battery is recycled.
[mk_ad]
Jackson's biggest problem was finding a safe electrolyte for the battery. The one originally used was highly aggressive and posed a major safety risk. Jackson has since developed an electrolyte that you could theoretically even drink. What the environmental impact will be remains to be seen.
The miracle batteries are (still) very expensive. A battery the size of an electric car would cost several thousand euros. However, the British battery manufacturer Austin Electric has already joined in and is working with Jackson to make the aluminum-air battery ready for the market. So much for the story.
The origin check
Many German-language articles about the “miracle battery” refer to a source called “ cleantechnica.com ”. This website is written in English and describes the entire story. But Cleantechnica.com is not the original source either, because if you read the text carefully, Cleantechnica.com points out that they took Daily Mail Furthermore, Cleantechnica.com notes that they have not found anything about the company that supposedly wants to work with the engineer. Here it is at the end:
[Author's note: A Google search for “Austin Electric Essex UK” failed to turn up any information or website for the company. The photos in the Daily Mail story are proprietary and cannot be republished by CleanTechnica, but nothing prevents you from reading the Daily Mail story yourself. I have guests from the UK staying with me at the moment and they suggest the Daily Mail may not enjoy the highest reputation for journalistic excellence.]
In English this is: [Author's Note: A Google search for “Austin Electric Essex UK” failed to turn up any information or websites for the company. The photos in the Daily Mail story are copyrighted and cannot be republished by CleanTechnica, but there is nothing stopping you from reading the Daily Mail story for yourself. I have guests from the UK staying with me at the moment who claim that the Daily Mail does not have the highest reputation for journalistic excellence.]
And the author is right. In fact, the Daily Mail was the first to report this story. Cleantechnica.com sources the information from the Daily Mail, all others refer to Cleantechnica.com. Ergo: In the end, everything comes from the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail is a tabloid that should indeed be viewed critically.
The Daily Mail is classified in many places as generally unreliable (compare here & here ), which went so far that the Daily Mail itself is no longer allowed to be named as a source on Wikipedia (also here ).
Conclusion on the miracle battery
One has copied from the other, and you end up with a page that has taken the content from a British tabloid with a very unfavorable reputation. As mentioned at the beginning, we cannot test this “miracle battery” and its properties. A single engineer who is said to have achieved a breakthrough, when in science it is mostly teamwork and small steps? One can certainly show a certain degree of skepticism.
Furthermore, other places have already dealt with the topic and see the story as unbelievable. The British chemist Philip E. Mason, who runs a kind of fact-checking channel on YouTube, sees the miracle battery as nonsense:
By loading the video, you accept YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
At this point we must therefore wait for further publications and, above all, scientific tests by independent third parties .
You might also be interested in:
17 tons of CO2 for the battery of an electric car: The fact check!
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )