• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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?

    • tty5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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.

        • tty5@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 hours ago

          CATL wholesale pricing per kWh is already almost 50% below lifepo with a goal of sub $20/kWh pricing in coming years.

          • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            Sorry but the theoretical price of cells isn’t relevant to the consumer. The price of products containing them is. This thing costs currently on the official site 900€ (with some sort of sale going on). The Elite 100v2 with comparable capacity, but using LiFePo4 (included in the same current sale) costs just 550€. To add insult to injury, it also outperforms the Na model in nearly every aspect except sub-freezing performance (where it at least still works, but nowhere near normal spec values either). This includes an abysmal solar charging efficiency for the Na of roughly 50% at normal temperature. Somehow.

            Again, once the price reflects the cell cost, this could be a very attractive option. At the moment, unless you’re into camping in sun-zero climates, it’s just a very bad deal.

            Edit: to be clear the Na model also doesn’t have a better life expectancy, not according to the spec. Both models are specified to “over 4000 cycles”, not there is no percentage threshold specified for the Na model. The LiFePo4 model includes “to 80% capacity” in that definition. If this is specified somewhere for the Na model, I can’t find it.

    • IronBird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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.