Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3652 sci.electronics:16549 sci.physics:16107
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!cpac.washington.edu!pjt
From: pjt@cpac.washington.edu (Larry Setlow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Subject: Battery Technology (was Re: solar cells)
Message-ID: <PJT.90Dec29233157@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
Date: 30 Dec 90 07:31:57 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.190857.16559@engin.umich.edu>
	<1990Dec28.210436.10601@zoo.toronto.edu> <939@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
	<1990Dec29.063939.20478@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Center for Process Analytical Chemistry, UW, Seattle, WA
Lines: 11
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 29 Dec 90 06:39:39 GMT

In article <1990Dec29.063939.20478@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
   At the moment, all are fearfully inefficient and tremendously costly if
   used in bulk, barring extremely favorable circumstances.  The state of
   battery technology in particular is a disgrace.

How promising are those new (and how new, for that matter) plastic
batteries that were reported in the PC mags a few months back?  The
(second- and third-hand) reports I heard made them sound like sliced
bread for portable computers and cars, even.  I haven't heard any
figures for storage capacity or whether they like deep-cycle
operation, though.