- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/693048
You must log in or register to comment.
The article has so many acronyms in it, I had to give up reading it. I assume this isn’t just cat like typing?
Nothing factually wrong with the article, but it has this sound of “this technology will solve all our problems” to it that I find highly problematic. Seven out of nine planetary boundaries are exceeded, climate change just being one of them. And all of them are exceeded because of our wasteful and growth-oriented way of life.
We can change our technology to be more sustainable or we can regress to a pre-industrial society with 90% of the population dying in the process. Which do you prefer?
That’s a false dichotomy. We can also improve our technology while ditching capitalism.
That’s reductive. Seeing capitalism as the root cause of all problems is disingenuous. The particular ideology oligarchies are using to justify their rule is incidental.
But… It is the root of a lot of problems and it helps the oligarchs… And it just sucks and makes no sense in general?
The world isnt binary. There are plenty of options in between those two. We could reduce our global emissions drastically without any noticeable difference in quality of life for most people. There is so much junk and single use stuff being produced that we could replace or simply stop producing. Banning all forms of commercial AI would hurt literally nobody except the idiots that decided to make it their career. If governments were serious about fighting climate change they would just take control of large parts of the industry and force them to stop making pointless shit that nobody actually needs.
Question: would I have to give up my exploitative companies that fuel my bid to become the first King of Internet? Because that’s kind of a dealbreaker for me.
What are you talking about, you filthy usurper? I’m the only legitimate king of the internet!
Are you inviting me to a money fight? I do love those. Let’s both put in ludicrous bids on some AI company and fight over ownership to pump it’s value in the market, I haven’t done one of those in months. Winner buys the next yacht we sink in the Bermuda Triangle to appease the Elder Ones, Respect upon their Unknowable Names. If only the poor knew how hard we worked to prevent this puny planet from being eaten by elder demons, they would be grateful.
Pathetic! My penis rocket is much bigger than your penis rocket!
As bullish as I am on Sodium-ion batteries, only very recently did researchers figure out how to boost the charge capacity](https://phys.org/news/2025-10-sodium-ion-battery-breakthrough-power.html), making any attempted commercial models in use so far nice, but not the final form where normies are buying them from Home Depot.
The Sehol car mentioned is a niche configuration of a common model, because the Li-ion model goes farther between charges. Other than the launch in 2023, and articles recycling the same info, find me 1 article that doesn’t use words like “could” or “will” or “might” about sales of this model? Same thing for the BYD Seagull with Na-ion batteries. It’s all greenwashing news where if you dig at it even slightly, you see how not real any of it is.
It’s closer than it was 5 years ago, but it’s still not a “revolution” by any means.
You dropped this [
I got a LIPO4 battery to run my tiny plastic boat or canoe with a trolling motor, most amazing performance I’ve ever seen. Hours of full thrust, never dropped below 20% power. So what’s up with that tech?
10.000 charge cycles.
And cheaper, hopefully.
I think it will displace lead acid use case first where its lighter in the same form factor and more resilient in cold. Already seeing small engine batteries. You can buy a car battery today on amazon but i understand it does play welll with alternator regulators, but that can change with retrofits or automakers adapting smarter regulators.
HiNa supplied sodium-ion batteries for JAC Motors in 2023. Early batteries had lower gravimetric energy density (145 Wh/kg) and volumetric energy density (330 Wh/liter) than LFP, but sodium-ion batteries have already improved since then. They have outstanding temperature range, yielding 88% retention at -20°C. For reference, the discharge capacity of NMC at 0°C, −10°C and −20°C is only 80%, 53%, and 23% of that at 25°C. The HiNa batteries had a cycle life of 4,500 cycles with 83% retention and a 2C charge rate, but even better sodium-ion batteries are on their way.
…
These developments point the way to much more. The cost of sodium battery materials is much lower than for any lithium battery. There are no resource bottleneck materials like cobalt or lithium to contend with. In addition, aluminum can be used for electrodes, whereas lithium requires copper for one of the electrodes. Carbon or graphite and separator materials will be similar, but in all other respects, sodium has much lower material costs. Compared to LFP, sodium does not require phosphorous, a substance that is almost exclusively sourced from one state in north Africa, nor lithium, a relatively abundant but more expensive substance than sodium. LFP cannot compete on material costs or temperature range, and both BYD and CATL expect to phase it out first in energy storage.
Early batteries had lower gravimetric energy density (145 Wh/kg) and volumetric energy density (330 Wh/liter) than LFP, but sodium-ion batteries have already improved since then.
OK, and where are the new numbers? 1% better, but still much worse than lfp?
Edit:a bit later they mention 175 Wh/kg and 10,000 lifetime cycles for some catl cells, that is not too bad, but still not great with lfp at about 200 Wh/kg which still is less than
Lithium IonNMC.with lfp at about 200 Wh/kg which still is less than Lithium Ion.
LFP is a lithium-ion technology. You probably meant “worse than NMC”, which is another, older, higher density but less safe lithium-ion technology.
Right, thanks. did not remember that name and searching yielded articles writing it like that so I went with it.
No, it actually hasn’t. It’s also not any better than any other battery tech out there right now. Longer term but less volume storage is a trade off.
What happened to these Graphene batteries and capacitors we were supposed to have by now?
More durable, cheaper, can be operated at a wider temperature range and much safer, but at a cost of lower energy density.
They look like a big step forward for uses where density matters little, like grid energy storage or small scale home backups.
The thing currently costs at least 50% more than the closest equivalent LiFePo4 from the same brand. The only real advantage seems to be it’s ability to handle sub freezing temperatures, but usability still drops dramatically (both capacity and available power delivery). Everything else is straight up worse in this one in direct comparison.
It’s only the first product, so it’ll most certainly get better. Also as numbers of products sold rise, costs fall. Once these are cheaper, that are a real choice.
CATL wholesale pricing per kWh is already almost 50% below lifepo with a goal of sub $20/kWh pricing in coming years.
sodium-ion is better than acid-lead in every use case (theoretically, when the tech reaches maturity), unlikely to beat lithium ion and others for the high-capacity/low weight type stuff but far as cheap/environmentally safe batteries goes sodium-ion should quickly dominate the field.
Yeah, this kind of tech can actually be groundbreaking.
10.000 charge cycles? You can imagine lot’s of new things with that. Maybe not a capitalistic quick buck but something bettering society.
Also for what I have understood it’s wildly better than lipo etc when it comes to resource use, especially “rare” earth.
Here is hoping.
