[HN Gopher] Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter...
___________________________________________________________________
Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 334 points
Date : 2024-05-03 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newatlas.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com)
| downrightmike wrote:
| Lower capacity in the same form factor, but inputs are common and
| cheap as dirt and will be able to do the hard work of supporting
| grid scale battery storage. We've learned that there are many
| applications that do not need to capacity of lithium.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Even if it isn't as high-capacity, a longer-lasting and safer
| battery over a thinner smartphone isn't a _bad_ trade-off,
| specially considering chips and screens get more efficient.
| This might have more market than stationary batteries.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Are they safer? Sodium is also very highly reactive.
|
| Otherwise agreed, I'm very happy with form factor of 5-10
| year old phones.
| majoe wrote:
| One of the claimed benefits of sodium based batteries, that
| I remember from the press statements of CATL, is that they
| don't burn, even when you but them in a fire. The also
| should work in a wider temperature range, which is
| especially interesting for cold regions.
|
| In the article it says, that they are using a "patented
| Prussian blue". Isn't CATL also using Prussian blue in
| their first generation sodium batteries?
| demondemidi wrote:
| NaCl is pretty safe. ;)
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Depends on the quantity and who you ask what the safe
| level is ;)
| strangattractor wrote:
| My cardiologist doesn't think so :(
| pkaye wrote:
| Low NaCl in a human body is also really bad.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| The battery made by the company mentioned uses an aqueous
| electrolyte construction which is theoretically safer from
| what I read, but I don't know if it can be made small for a
| portable.
|
| The fact it supports more cycles and tolerates a broader
| temperature range than Lithium counts points towards safety
| too. Lithium isn't happy above like 30 Celsius, which a
| fast charging portable device can _easily_ reach.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Lithium isn't happy above like 30 Celsius, which a fast
| charging portable device can _easily_ reach.
|
| Sounds pretty bad for people living in warmer climates
| then, as they tend to be above 30 celsius anyway. ;)
| cesarb wrote:
| > Sounds pretty bad for people living in warmer climates
| then, as they tend to be above 30 celsius anyway. ;)
|
| As a data point, the ambient temperature right now where
| I live is 33degC. I just walked home from a quick grocery
| trip a couple of blocks away. And that's not an atypical
| temperature (at least for the warmer months of the year;
| we're supposed to be in the colder months now, but the
| climate's been all wonky lately).
|
| If my phone's battery didn't like ambient temperatures
| above 30degC, it would have failed long ago. There's no
| air conditioning in the street.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| It doesn't fail abruptly, but it doesn't achieve optimal
| performance either. It has pretty strict optimal
| temperature range, something like 10C to 30C.
| troymc wrote:
| Here's Natron's page about safety:
| https://natron.energy/our-technology/safety
|
| I don't think the battery is a big block of pure sodium.
| That _would_ be unsafe.
|
| The battery electrolyte contains sodium ions, but the same
| is true of salt water and Gatorade.
|
| I think the industrial source of their sodium is sodium
| hydoxide, a common industrial feedstock.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide
| thejohnconway wrote:
| For iPhones, at least, I believe that period was when they
| were thinnest (the iPhone 6 is the thinnest one, 2014).
| rini17 wrote:
| Since na-ion cells are available on aliexpress, youtubers
| already did puncture tests, and indeed they did not catch
| fire.
|
| Seems like sodium is better "hidden" in the cathode/anode
| so it won't react witth the air so quickly as lithium when
| battery innards are exposed.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| Were they actually sodium batteries? Maybe they were
| fraudulently labeled Li-ion.
|
| Also it's my understanding that neither sodium batteries
| nor li-ion batteries have metallic sodium/lithium in them
| (besides small amounts which build up in heavily used li-
| ion cells or something).
| pfdietz wrote:
| I believe sodium here is always in the oxidized +1 state,
| like the lithium in Li-ion batteries. It's not present as a
| metal. The things being oxidized/reduced are transition
| metals in one or more electrodes.
| addaon wrote:
| If customers were supportive of this trade-off, why would we
| not already see companies exploring it with LTO batteries?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| But who wants a fat smartphone with lower battery life?
| Smartphones are where people want as much energy density as
| possible. Smartphones are also expensive devices with a
| relatively small battery, so it makes sense to add a few
| dollars for more energy density. Also most smartphone
| manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence, so
| much that countries are starting to legislate, they don't
| really want long lasting batteries, especially not if it
| compromises the user experience.
|
| There could be a market for power tools, where having more
| batteries of lower capacity for the same price can be
| desirable.
|
| Also maybe for hybrid vehicles.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| Personally, I wouldn't mind a fatter phone. It actually
| might be easier for me to hold. I've never seen the appeal
| of phones so thin I could shave with them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave
| with them_
|
| For people who wear slimmer-fitting clothing, this
| matters. Also, it's more about the weight: you want a
| phone light enough that holding it up isn't tedious.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| I suppose. Then again, so long as it's not so heavy as to
| cause pain, I think there would be a least some market
| for such devices. I thought the Steam Deck would be
| prohibitively heavy to use for it's weight, but the
| ergonomics made up for much of that.
| craftkiller wrote:
| If I use the steam deck for more than a couple of hours
| then I feel it in my wrists the next day. I still love
| the steam deck but it could go on a diet.
|
| (There are lighter alternatives, but I bought the steam
| deck specifically to financially support Valve's Linux
| gaming efforts)
| baq wrote:
| This should be nicely solved with something like the
| xreal glasses. Lie the deck down and have the display
| right in front of your eyes regardless of how you hold
| the input device.
| fallingsquirrel wrote:
| This isn't playing out in reality though.
|
| 10 years ago we already had the tech for smaller phones
| (and yes the battery life was fine, 1-2 days typical).
| Just check out any flagship from the 2010-2015 era, e.g.
| https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php
|
| If people actually care about slim, light phones... why
| has almost every company stopped making them?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If people actually care about slim, light phones...
| why has almost every company stopped making them?_
|
| It's not the sole factor. But _ceteris paribus_ , most
| consumer prefer a thinner, lighter phone.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The appeal is about being able to slide easily into pants
| pockets (esp. front pockets) without creating big
| uncomfortable tight bulges.
|
| Not as much of an issue with loose men's chinos, but
| definitely an issue with standard slim men's jeans, as
| well as with a slimmer-cut chino.
|
| And if you want to see if a fatter phone is easier to
| hold, that's what cases are for. You don't need them to
| make the phone fatter.
|
| In reality, most thin phones aren't all that thin anyways
| once people put a protective case on them, as many
| (most?) people do.
| genewitch wrote:
| this is why purses were invented. If you go out in public
| pay attention to visible phones sticking out of pockets
| and what sort of person that belongs to.
|
| I just commented on this last night, in fact. Wife's
| phone half out of her pocket, and it's a smaller iphone
| than my brick of a 1+, but my phone sits midway down my
| thigh in my pocket.
|
| I make no judgement on the pants people wear (or don't).
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" ...smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned
| obsolescence,..."_
|
| E-waste laws at some point will become inevitable, so
| planned obsolescence will be under scrutiny. Devices will
| have to have a minimum design life etc. Moreover, user-
| replaceable batteries--whether long life or high capacity--
| are likely to be mandatory as a result of such legislation.
|
| My old Nokia used to have a replaceable battery which also
| served as the back of the phone, a quick release button
| meant the battery could be replaced within seconds.
|
| Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done
| because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago.
| Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even
| easier to implement.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be
| done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years
| ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that
| even easier to implement.
|
| The problem is water resistance. Your old Nokia (except
| the indestructible 3310) was dead if you managed to let
| it fall into water, most phones up until the end of the
| headphone jack had the same problem - and secure-boot
| stuff has made it virtually impossible to recover data if
| the phone doesn't boot up any more.
|
| Water resistance and non-sealed phones don't really mix,
| unless you're going for really bulky things like the CAT
| lineup or Samsung's Active Tab series.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I don't know where this myth came from but there are many
| smartphones that are water resistant and with a user
| replaceable battery. One of the first in the mainstream
| was the Motorola Defy, there is also the Samsung Galaxy
| S5. Neither were particularly bulky. Interestingly the
| Galaxy S6, which followed the S5 was neither waterproof
| nor has a removable battery. I currently have one of the
| very few remaining smartphones with a removable battery
| (Galaxy XCover 7) and it is water resistant. It is a bit
| bulky (because it is rugged) but no more than the average
| phone when you add a case.
|
| Sealing a battery compartment in a way that doesn't
| hinder replacement is a solved problem, they do it to
| diving watches that are actually waterproof at depth, not
| merely water resistant.
|
| And phones cannot be completely sealed. That's why none
| are really waterproof (and warranty doesn't cover water
| damage). The biggest issues are speakers and microphones,
| getting the sound through and keeping the water out
| requires some compromises. Then there is the port(s), SIM
| tray, buttons, barometer,... By comparison, a battery
| cover is easy.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I don't know where this myth came from but there are
| many smartphones that are water resistant and with a user
| replaceable battery.
|
| They do exist, but usually (at least for Samsung and CAT,
| I owned both brands) come at the cost of flimsy
| backplanes that come loose when falling and/or are prone
| to break off the tiny snaps when you need to access the
| SD/SIM card or battery.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I actually find these Samsung "flimsy" backplanes really
| great and not actually flimsy. I never broke these tiny
| snaps even though it sometimes feels like they will. I
| have broken snaps many times while opening devices but
| not those from Samsung backplanes.
|
| For me, that they come loose when falling is actually a
| feature. The energy of the fall has to go somewhere, and
| having that back cover and sometimes battery fly off
| means that energy is not dissipated elsewhere where it
| could be more damaging.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Not only that:
|
| > Natron says its batteries charge and discharge at rates 10
| times faster than lithium-ion, a level of immediate
| charge/discharge capability that makes the batteries a prime
| contender for the ups and downs of backup power storage. Also
| helping in that use case is an estimated lifespan of 50,000
| cycles.
|
| So you take up more space, but the storage system is better in
| every other way (agility, conflict mineral free, longevity,
| cost). Feels like this puts a nail in the coffin of fossil
| generation.
|
| Edit: Assuming 1 cycle per day, that is a lifetime of ~137
| years. More aggressive cycling is still very favorable.
| addaon wrote:
| The challenge with interpreting statements like this is that
| there isn't just one lithium battery chemistry in widespread
| use, and even within a single chemistry the detailed
| structure of the anode and cathode can greatly change both
| achievable charge/discharge rates and longevity. For example,
| compared to the most commonly available energy-storage-
| optimized NMC cylindrical cells, LTO cylindrical cells charge
| and discharge at rates up to 10x faster, and have an
| estimated lifetime of tens of thousands of cycles... in
| exchange for have half or less of the energy density. Which
| is to say, depending on the exact details of the sodium cells
| being discussed, it's extremely likely that their entire
| performance envelope is achievable today with some
| combination of NMC, LFP, and LTO cells; although they may yet
| prove to have a cost advantage.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| > Natron says its batteries charge and discharge at rates 10
| times faster than lithium-ion, a level of immediate
| charge/discharge capability that makes the batteries a prime
| contender for the ups and downs of backup power storage. Also
| helping in that use case is an estimated lifespan of 50,000
| cycles.
|
| From everything I've read about existing Lithuum battery
| storage, this is already their strongpoint. Is it helpful to
| be 10x faster that the current speed?
| rangerelf wrote:
| Absolutely.
|
| Instead of stopping to charge my car for half an hour (up
| to 80%), I can stop for 5 minutes?
|
| Sign me up.
| chefandy wrote:
| I can't think of many things where a 10x improvement in its
| strongest important metric wouldn't be useful? I imagine
| dumping a lot of current into something very quickly and
| recovering it 50k times would be pretty useful in bursty
| workloads-- industrial processes, solar-powered gates and
| lifts, alarms, ignition systems, etc. And that's just gravy
| considering the real selling point is being made from
| commodity materials. Even if they're too heavy or something
| for electric cars, it would be great if it was a viable
| replacement for lead-acid car batteries.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| Change rates of lithium batteries are a _huge_ negative
| compared to pumping gasoline
| kragen wrote:
| yes, enormously helpful, if true (no figures are given, and
| they may be comparing to low-power lithium-ion batteries
| instead of high-power ones). an equally valid way to say
| '10 times faster discharge rate' is '10 times higher power
| for the same capacity' or '10 times higher power density'
|
| there are available li-ion batteries with a charge and
| discharge rate of '15c', which is to say, 1 hour / 15 = 4
| minutes. they are used in drones. (there are some
| advertised as '30c' but i suspect those are maybe just a
| fraud? like the notorious amazon million-lumen flashlights
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceA5xL6ggEw) if they really
| reach '150c', you could discharge 10% of the battery in 2.4
| seconds, which is closer to a firework rocket engine than a
| conventional battery. but, a rocket engine that you can
| recharge 50000 times
|
| a charge rate of '150c' would mean you could charge the
| battery halfway in 12 seconds, and there are a lot of
| scenarios where that would be useful
|
| you could imagine '150c' batteries displacing much larger
| supercapacitors from many uses, rather than displacing
| conventional batteries. the number given in the article of
| 70 watt hours per kilogram is, in si units, 250kJ/kg. if
| you divide that by the 24 seconds implied by '10 times
| faster than lithium-ion' you get a power density of 10.4
| kilowatts per kilogram.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_density says supercaps
| are in the 15 kilowatts per kilogram range. quadcopter
| drone electric motors are typically in the neighborhood of
| 4-5 kilowatts per kilogram, so this would make the drone
| battery much smaller than the motor instead of bigger
|
| more likely, though, it's a press release lie, where
| they're saying something that's technically true (there are
| lithium batteries with a '1c' charge and discharge rate,
| which have higher energy density than the higher-powered
| ones, and their batteries reach '10c', _i.e._ , 6 minutes)
| but creates a false impression of something that would be a
| huge breakthrough if it were true
| hedora wrote:
| For grid storage, it's unclear if faster charge/discharge
| matters.
|
| We ended up sizing our batteries to meet wattage demands
| for our appliances. I wish we had ~ 2x as many kWh as we
| do. Anker has a home battery whose main selling point is
| that you can add kWh without adding peak wattage.
|
| For use in vehicles, faster charge rates are a big win.
| Faster discharge probably doesn't matter much for cars
| (0-60 times are already ridiculously low). They might for
| drones / planes though.
| alberth wrote:
| It's also _significantly_ heavier by weight.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Which again, is basically a non-issue for grid-scale
| storage.
|
| These aren't for laptops or cars.
|
| Though they seem to trying to increase energy density, so
| they _can_ become for cars. But not there yet.
| sanderjd wrote:
| No big deal if you set it on the ground and never move it!
| GrantMoyer wrote:
| Do you mean heavier per energy capacity, or am I
| misinterpreting "heavier by weight"?
| nightowl_games wrote:
| Hopefully we can continue to lower the power requirements of
| our every day items and the lower capacity of these batteries
| will become less of an issue.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Lowering the power we use, is the only realistic goal.
|
| I wear an Apple Watch. On my wrist, is a small, Lithium-ion
| battery, that contains a great deal of power.
|
| That power is trickled out, over time.
|
| If it were to all release at once, I'd no longer have a left
| hand.
|
| Packing all that energy into smaller and smaller form
| factors, increases the risk; no matter what tech we use.
|
| Energy is energy. When it comes out quickly, we call those
| "explosions."
| AustinDev wrote:
| One little point I want to clarify is that if your Apple
| Watch battery did indeed short and none of the protections
| against shorts worked, you'd likely just have a burn on
| your wrist. 309mAH isn't all that much energy assuming a
| full charge.
|
| I once bridged a ~2,500mAH 18650 battery that was in my bag
| when my keys created a circuit between the anode and the
| cathode. The result was a small fire inside my bag that was
| quickly stamped out. Now, if I'm carrying batteries capable
| of dumping a lot of current quickly, I use cases.
|
| What excites me most about this new battery tech is home
| and commercial backup energy storage that's much 'greener'
| and cheaper than lithium. There is a lot of space in rural
| and grid settings, so the density of Li-Ion isn't really
| needed.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Well, shorting out is a fairly realistic scenario, as
| opposed to a flash-boom, but it is still a relatively
| slow release.
|
| I was really talking about how much energy potential is
| stored in batteries. In batteries, the energy is
| generally stored as potential chemical reactions, so it
| isn't realistic to have a flash-boom.
|
| Supercapacitors, on the other hand, may have more of a
| boom potential.
| genewitch wrote:
| most, and i do mean most 18650s have a circuit board in
| the endcap that manages the charging and discharging, so
| a dead short will generally cause that board to heat up
| and let out smoke. If you did manage to actually short an
| 18650 (it's not difficult, remove the plastic on the
| outside and jam a flathead in between the positive cap
| and the battery body, where the insulator is), it doesn't
| just "make a small fire, easily stamped out".
|
| if you'd like i can go dig out a 26650 that i have where
| i dropped it and the board part popped off; but i am sure
| there are websites with pictures already.
| AustinDev wrote:
| I didn't know this. I was wondering why it was such a
| tame event given the maximum discharge rate of those
| batteries.
|
| I was walking out of my building with a group of folks
| after work and some woman said, 'Excuse me sir but there
| is smoke coming out of your bag'.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > If it were to all release at once, I'd no longer have a
| left hand.
|
| Well, super interesting.
|
| At first I doubted because the apple watch has very little
| energy, then I looked it up. Turns out the biggest ones
| have 2Wh worth of power. Doesn't seem like much until you
| consider that 2Wh is roughly 6000J. Bullets are launched in
| the neighborhood of 1000J.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Not really sure how much further there is to go.
|
| We've already got LED bulbs, heat pumps, and energy-efficient
| appliances.
|
| Washers and dryers still have to spin and agitate.
| Dishwashers still have to shoot jets of water. Ceiling fans
| still need to move air.
|
| And with the switch to electrification (cars, stoves, dryers,
| hot water heaters) electricity usage will _increase_ ,
| fortunately, to replace polluting gasoline.
|
| So I think future technological progress really is going to
| come down to _increased_ battery capacity, not decreasing
| energy usage.
|
| Ultimately, the simple fact is that solar power isn't
| generated at night.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| I mean on the small scale where the object has a built in
| battery. On the scale your talking about, large sodium
| batteries on the grid to store power for renewables makes
| sense.
| api wrote:
| Grid storage is dominated by $/kWh.
|
| For land and sea transport it's mostly volume/kWh.
|
| For electric aircraft it's kg/kWh.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > cheap as dirt
|
| There are _lots_ of things left to make grid battery storage
| cheap.
|
| As well as the cells needing to be engineered to be cheaper,
| there are lots of changes to the battery packs that can be
| made, together with changes to inverters.
|
| For batteries, I'd like to see research into less consistent
| manufacturing and higher failure rates. Current packs the
| entire pack is unusable if just one cell fails in a way that
| leads to lots of heat production. If pack balancing circuits
| had the ability to take a cell or a parallel group of cells
| 'out of circuit' while still using the rest of the pack, then
| battery lifespans could be dramatically increased and it would
| be possible to manufacture cells far cheaper.
|
| For inverters, we should go for a direct-to-10kV inverter
| process. No transformers. At 10kV, currents are far lower and
| therefore wires can be far thinner (and cheaper).
|
| Consider making batteries ~15kV too - that reduces by ~30% the
| amount of expensive silicon needed, together with big
| reductions in copper costs, at the expense of extra design
| effort for much higher voltage batteries. At these higher
| voltages, you'd either use oil cooling, or you'd have ~10
| separate coolant loops, one at each ~1500 volts of potential.
| garbageman wrote:
| While it would be neat to build batteries that handle
| manufacturing defects akin to a CPU with 4 cores but 3
| useable, I suspect the additional complexity, wiring, and
| circuitry is limiting. Batteries today are almost (or
| actually?) a commodity. Detecting and simply replacing the
| entire battery is probably cheaper and easier at grid scale.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The wiring and complexity isn't very much - you simply need
| a contactor that can 'short' the offending set of cells. It
| only needs to close once, so can simply be made from a
| spring and meltable material. And you need ~100 of these
| per 400 volt battery.
|
| Beyond that, all the complexity is in software. Software
| needs to monitor cell voltages and currents to detect a
| self-heating cell. Software then needs to stop balancing
| that cell up (ie. let it discharge). At the moment the cell
| voltage hits zero, software needs to close the 'short'
| across the cell, permanently taking it out of the circuit.
|
| This design might occasionally prevent charging the entire
| battery for a few minutes during this process.
| Specifically, when a cell is midway through being taken out
| of circuit, it can only be discharged, and would be
| dangerous to recharge.
|
| But a few minutes of downtime per year seems acceptable to
| me.
| moffkalast wrote:
| It'll be a good day when we can finally ditch lead acid.
| Havoc wrote:
| Keen to see these enter the hobby market as well.
|
| Not super keen on yoloing DIY with lithium but sodium seems a bit
| safer
| gorpy7 wrote:
| Most diyers are using LFP at this point and that's considered
| quite stable. a smaller group try to reuse old ev batteries and
| those are generally considered more risky because of the
| runaway effect that's possible- which still seems relatively
| low. regardless, more stable chemistries are always welcome and
| i agree with others that the discharge recharge and cycles
| would be amazing!
| dtx1 wrote:
| 50 Thousand Cycles would make replacing batteries unnecessary for
| almost all usecases. I would love such a battery in an electric
| bike. Max Range would be quite limited compared to a Lithium
| Version but with 10x discharge capacity and functionally
| unlimited life you could make a beast of a commuter e-bike.
|
| 50000 Cycles would realistically mean you can charge the bike
| every day for a hundred years
| analognoise wrote:
| The first generation will work like that.
|
| Then they will introduce various defects into the manufacturing
| process to decrease the lifespan (and they'll say it's cost)
| and the batteries will last 10 years max. Maybe 15 if you're
| lucky.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Why so cynical
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| I mean, look at what was done to lighting. There are some
| original Edison bulbs that still work, yet you'd be lucky
| to get a year out of a modern incandescent. Same thing
| happened to LED bulbs.
| dtx1 wrote:
| > There are some original Edison bulbs that still work,
| yet you'd be lucky to get a year out of a modern
| incandescent.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
|
| > Same thing happened to LED bulbs.
|
| Because LED Bulbs cook your LEDs and are stupid design.
| Get a permanent LED fixture with decent passive cooling
| and they will last for decades. Adapting LEDs into the
| same Plug as Incandescent lighting just does not work.
| asddubs wrote:
| I've actually found that LED bulbs have only gotten more
| and more reliable over time. I used to have to replace
| them regularly but I haven't had one fail in several
| years now. And permanent LED fixtures are the stupid
| design. Who wants to do electrical work every time your
| light fails because of a power surge/lightning
| strike/capacitor going bad/whatever?
| dtx1 wrote:
| I don't know where you are from but here in Germany
| Surges/Lightning Strikes that damage equipment are so
| rare that I can't remember it ever happening to me in my
| lifetime. And Replacing a fixture if it eventual fails
| after decades is just not that hard. I did it in my
| Appartment and I only shocked myself twice, so it's very
| doable.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| I stand corrected.
| bmicraft wrote:
| The tradeoff with conventional light bulbs is efficiency
| vs. lifetime. This is not the usual planned obsolescence
| it is made out to be, you are actually getting more
| efficient bulbs that way.
| gabrielhidasy wrote:
| Want the experience of a lightbulb from 100 years ago
| right now? Buy a 220v lamp and use it in a 110v circuit.
| It will be much dimmer, a lot more orange/yellow, and
| last for decades.
| rapsey wrote:
| The market for cost effective grid batteries is gigantic.
| There is no need to self sabotage.
| addaon wrote:
| You can build such a bike today with LTO cells, which are
| commonly rated at 5,000 - 25,000 cycles (depending on
| manufacturer) to 80% of nameplate capacity. You'll compromise
| on range, of course; but in the worst-case corner (extremely
| low temperature outside, high current draw rate) the comparison
| to at least LFP is pretty favorable, and you're within a factor
| of 2x or 3x of NMC throughout the envelope.
| dtx1 wrote:
| Honestly after a quick google search I'm not convinced LTO
| Cells are applicable for that use case. Best I found on a
| quick search is 80wh/kg and at a low voltage and good enough
| but not great discharge capacity. Even in the electrical
| bicycle range that's just not enough to be practical, let
| alone competitive.
|
| LFP at it's peak gets you there but it's also not a great
| experience. The Battery needs to be too large to get you
| enough current to be enjoyable.
|
| That's why the 10x (even a 3x would do it) in discharge
| capacity is what get's me excited. That's enough that you can
| use only a few cells but with enough output to be a nice
| experience, just with short range.
| addaon wrote:
| 80 Wh/kg beats the 70 Wh/kg of the cells discussed in the
| article, which was the benchmark for your proposal. Voltage
| doesn't really matter at all for this; you just end up with
| a few more cells in series (though it's admittedly awkward
| if you're targeting ~56 V max as the top of SELV where most
| single-chip BMS ICs top out at 18s). And even though most
| common LTOs are only rated for 10C, they're rated to do
| that below 0degC, in which domain they absolutely crush the
| ratings of LFP cells -- for LFP, you end up sizing for
| temperature unless you're looking at summer riding only.
| Admittedly you're not going to match 40 C LFP and NMC pouch
| cells with a cylindrical cell, and I'm not aware of anyone
| currently making LTO pouch cells; but I do think it seems
| unlikely that the sodium cells that are the subject of this
| article bring any really new capabilities to the domain of
| ebikes.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| In industry trade magazines I'm seeing references to automotive
| batteries that would be good for half a million miles. Typical
| US driver would take 40 years to drive that far.
|
| Also seeing that companies are serious about actual production
| of solid state batteries. Which have twice the energy density.
| I don't see cost numbers but might be those are actually
| cheaper just because there is less mass to manufacture.
| tmaly wrote:
| I remember seeing a post on HN a few years back where a professor
| at MIT figured out how to make a battery out of more abundant
| materials.
|
| Does anyone recall this post or have a link?
| rgbrenner wrote:
| Ambri? They've been making very slow progress.
| pfdietz wrote:
| The difficulty of operating devices for prolonged periods at
| very high temperature is not well appreciated.
| ancorevard wrote:
| Zero dependency on China is a pretty significant bonus.
| specialist wrote:
| Huh. I just checked. Swiss-based company Arxada supplies the
| (battery grade) prussian blue that Natron uses. Though I didn't
| quickly determine where it's actually made. Probably UK.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| They've been out of the labs for a while. CATL has been producing
| sodium ion batteries for a few years already. They are used in
| some of the cheaper cars there. But nice to see more companies
| getting sodium ion to production.
| specialist wrote:
| Sodium-ion compliments Li-ion in the marketplace. Each battery
| variation is better suited for various niches. eg Sodium is a
| better fit for stationary storage. Though CATL and others are
| using sodium for down market vehicles too, which should free up
| Li-ion capacity for other use cases.
|
| To reach net-zero 2050, we'll need an installed base of 2
| terawatts of battery storage. Annual production is ~30 gigawatts.
| (IIRC.) So mfgs will still continue to scale up and make as many
| Li-ion (eg LFP) batteries as possible.
|
| --
|
| Also exciting are the misc thermal solutions just now starting
| their own cost-learning-curves. Advanced geothermal (generation
| and storage), box of rocks (heat batteries), geothermal heat
| pumps (commercial and residential).
| pfdietz wrote:
| Global battery making capacity is now around 1 TWh/year.
| XorNot wrote:
| Big if cheaper - which is the crux of the issue.
|
| LiFePO4 loses money in every analysis of putting in a home
| battery I've done: if sodium is more common, the question is does
| that meaningfully reduce the price of the battery.
| RetroTechie wrote:
| > the question is does that meaningfully reduce the price of
| the battery.
|
| Battery manufacture isn't rocket science. The cost of raw
| materials weighs heavily.
|
| Also: safety, and raw materials that can be sourced anywhere.
|
| Nice to see sodium battery production scaling up.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| We're undergoing a Cambrian explosion of battery chemistries at
| the moment. Other startups, such as From Energy is scaling up
| production of Iron Air batteries in West Virginia, which will be
| an order of magnitude cheaper than lithium ion and will provide
| grid scale power [1]. North Harbour Clean Energy Promised to
| build a manufacturing facility in Australia to build Vanadium
| Flow batteries, which have very high charge cycle in their
| lifetime and can store energy for longer durations [2].
|
| The advantage with Sodium Ion is that, although energy densities
| are lower than Lithium Ion, it could still be used to power
| mobile devices and electric vehicles.
|
| [1] https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-
| fo...
|
| [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-02-02/vanadium-
| redo...
| bjornsing wrote:
| Interesting. Is there a public spreadsheet or similar
| summarizing the most important properties of these new battery
| types? It takes forever to just research one of them in enough
| depth to understand their basic properties, and I'd like to
| compare many.
| fwungy wrote:
| DOE puts out comparison papers at times, but I haven't looked
| in a while.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| "The energy density of sodium ion batteries is low.It is
| only 100-150Wh/kg, while the energy density of lithium
| energy is 120-180Wh/kg. This means that for batteries of
| the same size, sodium-ion batteries can store much less
| energy than lithium-ion batteries.Jan 2, 2024"
|
| https://www.dnkpower.com/will-sodium-batteries-replace-
| lithi...
| shrx wrote:
| That's 20% less, not "much less".
| quitit wrote:
| This is truly one of those "it begins" moments.
|
| The article touches on it - but the news goes well beyond the
| battery. Li ion batteries come with significant geopolitical
| baggage beyond simple cost.
|
| The situation is well summarised by the graph on this page.
| https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/chart-countries-produ...
| jdewerd wrote:
| "Mostly from Australia and Chile" seems like the opposite of
| baggage, that sounds like about the best you could hope for
| in a global commodity, so many of which come from unstable
| regions, conflict regions, or outright adversaries.
|
| Yes, I know that China does most of the refining/assembly,
| but that has little to do with the chemistry. "Building new
| Na-ion capacity outside China" is probably even harder than
| "building new li-ion capacity outside China."
| quitit wrote:
| Let's unpack it then.
|
| You've stated:
|
| >"Mostly from Australia and Chile" seems like the opposite
| of baggage, that sounds like about the best you could hope
| for in a global commodity, so many of which come from
| unstable regions, conflict regions, or outright
| adversaries.
|
| So let's break it down with some facts (all easily
| searchable.)
|
| (1) The graph states that Australia is the largest producer
| of Lithium, and states that of their exports, 90% goes to
| China.
|
| (2) Australia exports the majority of its lithium.
| (https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/insights-australian-
| exports-...)
|
| (3) Lithium ion batteries are currently reliant on Cobalt
| for their cathode.
|
| (4) The DRC (Congo) is the largest producer of Cobalt, then
| Indonesia, then Russia.
|
| >"seems like the opposite of baggage ... unstable regions,
| conflict regions, or outright adversaries"
|
| From (1) and (2) we can see that the world is dependent on
| China for the only viable battery option for a range of
| modern applications. Thus the claim that this isn't baggage
| is not supported. Secondly China is also considered an
| adversary of the USA, by the USA. Thirdly the claim that
| this does not involve unstable/conflict regions is also not
| supported due to (3) and (4).
|
| Part two: you've also stated the below:
|
| >"Building new Na-ion capacity outside China" is probably
| even harder than "building new li-ion capacity outside
| China."
|
| While this is a baseless comment, let's look at it anyway:
|
| (5) The article is specifically about the commencement of
| mass production of Na batteries in the USA.
|
| That already refutes the core premise of your statement,
| but let's follow it further.
|
| (6) The article notes that unlike Li batteries, the
| materials are trivially sourced domestically.
|
| That's an important difference from Li batteries, and
| significantly boosts the viability of competitive
| production in the USA (and other countries outside of
| China).
| pfdietz wrote:
| > (3) Lithium ion batteries are currently reliant on
| Cobalt for their cathode.
|
| Some kinds are. Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries
| are not.
| sunshinesnacks wrote:
| Glad you mentioned this. Any conversation about batteries
| and minerals that mentions cobalt _but not LFP_ is
| severely lacking.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| China doesn't have largest Li deposits. It's a hub area.
| Perhaps THE hub area for industrial goods.
|
| You didn't really refute GP's point.
| quitit wrote:
| Unfortunately I don't accept "because I said so" as a
| counterpoint.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| All that is a _lot_ to unpack, but ever since I saw
| University of Santa Clara use one of these batteries, I
| have been interested: Yes, ALL your points are both well
| taken and accurate. The DRC is a disaster in many ways:
|
| https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-
| how...
| jdewerd wrote:
| Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) has been ramping for a
| decade, with "no cobalt" as a selling point. It's not
| huge in the US, but it is in China.
|
| https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/en/blog/themen/batterie-
| update...
| mbgerring wrote:
| Lithium Ion rely on cobalt nickel, but LFP do not, and
| also do not have the thermal runaway problems that
| lithium ion batteries do. This is close to being a solved
| problem.
| pfdietz wrote:
| LFP batteries are also lithium ion batteries, just a
| different kind.
| mbgerring wrote:
| Also, there are very large and as-yet-untapped lithium
| deposits in the US, not to mention a burgeoning recycled
| lithium supply chain.
| topspin wrote:
| Good analysis, until you got here:
|
| > While this is a baseless comment, let's look at it
| anyway:
|
| It's not baseless. This is a golden boy startup, blessed
| with save the Earth kudos and highly subsidized. The DOE
| spun this outfit up in 2020 with $19M. Michigan and
| Whitmer have fast tracked the one, modest, token plant,
| delivered the tax breaks and signed the contracts for a
| sodium battery power facility in the state. VC money
| chased after all this as you would expect.
|
| Those are all temporary or one-time goodies. This is
| heavy industry and at some point all the love goes away:
| the subsidies go away, the exemptions go away. Then the
| foreign competitors steal your tech and undercut you.
|
| At that point you have a choice: fail, or build out where
| labor is cheap, workers are disposable and regulators are
| just low-cost party agents, and use your position as US
| company to readily import your foreign made products.
|
| Notice how none this has anything to do with what raw
| materials are involved or battery chemistry. It's not
| about those things. It never has been. The fact that the
| US has large reserves of sodium is not a factor: filling
| a ship with sodium and sending it to some foreign plant
| being only the most obvious thing to do.
| some_furry wrote:
| > At that point you have a choice: fail, or build out
| where labor is cheap, workers are disposable and
| regulators are just low-cost party agents, and use your
| position as US company to readily import your foreign
| made products.
|
| Why are any of us okay with humans being "disposable"
| anywhere on Earth?
| jdewerd wrote:
| Why did you spend 200 words arguing for the premise of my
| second point? Usually one spends time arguing _against_
| your opponent but ok, sure, I 'm glad we both prefer
| refining and manufacturing in friendly countries.
|
| > [the commencement of mass production of Na batteries in
| the USA] refutes the core premise of your statement
|
| How so? This plant is one tiny step on a very, very long
| road. I'm glad to see it happen, but extrapolating the
| outcome of a race from the first few steps would be
| incredibly foolish. China can build Na-ion too, so the
| question becomes whether the difference in chemistry
| creates an advantage for one party or another.
|
| > unlike Li batteries, the materials are trivially
| sourced domestically
|
| So China can cut out the only part of the supply chain
| that leans towards the US sphere of influence, while the
| US gets a discount on shipping? This isn't the own you
| think it is.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Could have done without the first paragraph. :) I
| wouldn't be excited to have either Australia (supply
| locked up by China) or Chile (read anything re: politics
| last 5 years) as my sources. the general thrust that
| youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading
| instead of illuminating is correct. (requires discussion
| about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss
| lithium-ion (??) and specifically only lithium, and Chile
| and Australia)
| jdewerd wrote:
| > Could have done without the first paragraph. :)
|
| Sure, let's turn down the temperature.
|
| > youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of
| shading instead of illuminating
|
| _Let 's turn down the temperature._
|
| > I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia ... or
| Chile ... as my sources
|
| China is even less excited than you are to have Australia
| and Chile as their sources. Eliminating a small pain from
| the USA and a big pain from China gives a net benefit to
| China, so it's weird to see it advertised as a net
| benefit for the USA.
|
| That said, raw material availability isn't the limiting
| factor here. We probably shouldn't even be discussing it.
|
| > requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply
| chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??)
|
| That's the alternative Na-ion has to beat. We could build
| lithium refining and manufacturing capacity in the US
| sphere of influence. Evaluations of any new technology
| should compare it to the best available alternatives,
| yes?
| jajko wrote:
| Unless you are from those places. Ie few years ago we
| visited Salar de Uyuni, biggest salt flat in the world,
| properly amazing place. And one of the biggest deposits of
| lithium. Any form of mining (and you know in Bolivia it
| won't be eco-friendly unless miracle happens) will destroy
| at least some aspects of it. And there are massive plans.
|
| Now sure not that many species of animals/plants will be
| affected compared to say some rainforest location, but it
| still pains me to even imagine it. If it will bring good
| jobs to the locals then at least some good locally will be
| achieved, but thats not always the case.
| dredds wrote:
| No animals/plants live on arid salt-flats. They pile the
| lithium salts and let it dry before carting it away. What
| changes if they also use the sodium?
| ForOldHack wrote:
| "Lithium Mining Is Leaving Chile's Indigenous Communities
| High and Dry (Literally)
|
| As the metal fuels the clean tech boom, companies race to
| mine the Atacama Region. At stake: fragile ecosystems,
| scarce water resources, and ancient ways of life."
|
| https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithium-mining-leaving-
| chiles-i...
| ggreer wrote:
| If you do industry in a place teeming with life, people
| try to stop it because you're harming lots of living
| things. If you do industry in a desolate place, people
| try to stop it because you're harming the few rare
| species that can survive there.
|
| The more important issue to consider is: What is the
| global effect? In this case lithium mining means cheaper
| electric vehicles, which reduces demand for petroleum.
| Petroleum extraction & combustion is far more harmful to
| the environment, so this is a net win.
| adriand wrote:
| Cobalt, however, which is used in common lithium battery
| chemistries, is mostly sourced from the DRC (Congo), much
| of it under terrible conditions: forced labour, child
| labour, and rampant environmental degradation. The book
| Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives [1]
| is a real eye-opener if you haven't read it. Fascinating
| and deeply disturbing.
|
| 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60784614-cobalt-red
| ggreer wrote:
| Since 2022, the majority of EVs manufactured have no
| cobalt in their batteries. Most manufacturers use lithium
| iron phosphate chemistry (LFP), which is cheaper and
| safer than NMC or NCA. The cobalt-based chemistries are
| only used in higher performance vehicles, where LFP's
| lower energy density becomes a problem.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| Not yet. At least in the US the only LFP EVs available
| right now (Spring 2024) are certain models of the Ford
| Mustang Mach-E and the standard range Tesla Model 3. This
| may change over the coming months.
| ggreer wrote:
| I'm talking about fraction of vehicles, not fraction of
| different models available.
| imglorp wrote:
| The chart is about production but does it omit the real story
| by implying scarcity? There are huge amounts in the US; here
| are two:
|
| https://www.techspot.com/news/100117-potentially-world-
| large...
|
| https://www.unilad.com/news/lithium-white-gold-lake-
| californ...
|
| PS, here's another:
| https://www.mainepublic.org/2021-10-25/a-1-5-billion-
| lithium...
| glial wrote:
| There is also an iron air battery project in Minnesota:
| https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/10/rusty-batteries-cou...
| davedx wrote:
| > which will be an order of magnitude cheaper than lithium ion
|
| Maybe. But take a lot of these cost claims with a giant pinch
| of salt: TCOE/TCOS at scale is what matters and we won't have
| any real idea what that will be while most of these battery
| chemistries are still pre commercialization.
|
| That being said the cambrian explosion is very encouraging.
| Just good to temper optimism sometimes.
|
| Source: I talk to grid battery developers for my business
| pfdietz wrote:
| The issue with iron-air batteries is their lower
| charging/discharge current. So they focus on a different
| storage niche: week-scale storage. Storage at different
| timescales can coexist and work together on a grid, since the
| mismatch of supply and demand, when viewed as its Fourier
| transform, has components at multiple different timescales.
| mulmen wrote:
| > Just good to temper optimism sometimes.
|
| Sure. But is it really? Like in what way is it good? I see a
| lot more "tempering" than I do breathless optimism. Is any
| serious person in a position to do something meaningful with
| the batteries falling prey to hype that needs to be tempered?
| ForOldHack wrote:
| "take a lot of these cost claims with a giant pinch of salt"
|
| That was funny.
| rockskon wrote:
| Lesser energy density is a pretty big caveat that can readily
| make or break the commercial viability of this technology. How
| big of a difference compared to lithium ion is the energy
| density?
| eliaspro wrote:
| Density doesn't really matter for stationary grid storage,
| where even slightly lower battery costs can easily outmatch
| higher space requirements.
| zardo wrote:
| It matters, but only as much as shipping costs matter.
| lukan wrote:
| "The advantage with Sodium Ion is that, although energy
| densities are lower than Lithium Ion, it could still be used to
| power mobile devices and electric vehicles."
|
| It already does.
|
| "Chinese automaker Yiwei debuted the first sodium-ion battery-
| powered car in 2023. It uses JAC Group's UE module technology,
| which is similar to CATL's cell-to-pack design.[84] The car has
| a 23.2 kWh battery pack with a CLTC range of 230 kilometres
| (140 mi)"
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| Hopefully long term, this can help us dismantle unnecessary high
| voltage transmission lines, and let people trickle store power at
| 48volts and discharge it at 110 through inverters.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Why would it? Moving these batteries would be more work than
| having transmission lines and we still need long distance
| power.
|
| There is a reason why pipelines are popular even though we have
| the capability to move oil using normal transportation.
| proee wrote:
| Hi Voltage transmission lines are completely necessary. Running
| on 48V would require ridiculously large cables over any
| significant distance. Is there a reason you want to "Dismantle"
| high voltage transmission lines? They are the greatest
| invention since sliced bread.
|
| edit: Sliced bread was invented in 1928, and the first high
| voltage transmission line was apparently tested in 1889.
| Therefore my statement needs revised to be historically
| accurate.
| gabrielhidasy wrote:
| I imagine the idea they were proposing is ~most energy being
| locally generated, 48v should be fine from solar panels to
| batteries.
|
| But I can't see that working on denser cities, or factories,
| or less sunny climates.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| This is what I'm referring to.
|
| Houses mostly, the reason we need such high voltage is
| because someone can turn on an oven and consume 5kw. But
| that oven only runs for 1 hour, or more averagely, 30
| minutes. So in the context of 200kwh battery systems at
| EVERY house, and inverters at every house, that oven can
| easily run off the inverter, and the house would never need
| to pull down heavy wattage from the grid. In this scenario,
| the grid's variability goes down dramatically, thus,
| reducing the voltage requirements... Instead every house
| would have small solar and a trickle feed of, lets say
| 800w-1kw consistently during the day.
|
| Additionally, for places that have a shit-ton of sun, can
| do much better with microgrids and generators.
| proee wrote:
| Understood, but even if you are trickle feeding thousands
| of small houses with say 1kw(max) each, that still
| requires Megawatts of power. 1k*1k=1M. Therefore, you
| still need high voltage transmission lines to move this
| power from the source.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| Currently most houses have a instantaneous load
| requirement of 100kw (some much higher) which means your
| transmission line size / load requirements are going down
| 100 fold. That effectively allows us to "dismantle
| unnecessary high voltage transmission lines". Yes there
| will still be high voltage lines, (and even the lines
| that go right up to your property are typically 1000
| volts or more, which qualifies for "high voltage")... but
| such a future of inverters and batteries would still
| reduce most of the infrastructure.
|
| Look, I'm not wrong about this, it just would require all
| houses to have their own inverters and batteries. I'm not
| saying this is GOING to happen, I'm just saying the
| requirements on the grid would be so damn small that
| having a PG&E would be hilariously expensive in this
| possible future. Instead you would have microgrids and
| much smaller scale power companies.
|
| If you all want to keep paying $1 per kwh (2026 pricing)
| by all means don't push for this kind of infrastructure
| change. If people want $0.01 per kwh again, this is the
| way to do it. At this point we're mostly paying for PG&Es
| infrastructure that makes sense in today's batteryless
| world. We don't have to keep paying that price. There are
| different futures and more competition possible.
| aembleton wrote:
| > Currently most houses have a instantaneous load
| requirement of 100kw
|
| What for? If I were to run a heat pump, car charger, oven
| and electric shower all at the same time that would be
| about 25kw
| willglynn wrote:
| Large single family homes have 400A 1O 120/240V service,
| which is 96 kW peak or 76.8 kW for NEC's definition of
| continuous. Most have 200A service or smaller, which is
| half that.
|
| What load do you imagine causes "most" homes to exceed
| 100 kW, and "some much higher"?
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| If anything, we should be running 1MV+ transmission lines to
| conserve copper and/or aluminum.
| conradev wrote:
| > We haven't seen a weight-based energy density figure from
| Natron itself, but a 2022 article from Chemical & Engineering
| News put its sodium-ion batteries at 70 Wh/kg, around the very
| bottom of the sodium-ion energy density scale. That aligns well
| with the company's stationary-only business plan, as sodium-ion
| batteries being pursued for potential mobility use have more than
| double that density. CATL showed a 160 Wh/kg sodium-ion battery
| in 2021 and has plans to increase that density over 200 Wh/kg to
| better meet the needs of electric vehicles.
|
| CATL's sodium batteries were more than twice as dense three years
| ago
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| Yes, but since the US is becoming extremely
| protectionist/nationalist with its energy infrastructure, the
| only relevant bit from this story is that this production is
| occuring entirely within the US.
|
| Though it is good news that this company can produce much
| denser batteries in the future!
| gpm wrote:
| Energy density isn't a particularly interesting target for
| stationary energy storage applications. I'd assume that they
| just aren't optimizing much for it (yet).
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Is this battery's design patented or a secret? If patented, what
| is the lifetime of the patent? If not, how easy will it be for
| others to replicate?
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I had an early EV with only 80 miles of range, and found it
| extremely useful for most in town travel and commuting. Now that
| EVs are pushing ~400 miles range at about 300Wh/kg, assuming
| sodium is about half that (from what I've seen), you'd still get
| a respectable 100-200 miles in a car. For me, and I imagine a lot
| of people, that would be totally acceptable if it means lower
| cost, and batteries that effectively last forever without
| replacement.
| alemanek wrote:
| From the article it claims charge speed 10x that of lithium and
| 50,000 cycle lifetime. I don't know about you but a EV that can
| go 150 miles and charge to 80% again in 2min would be super
| compelling to me.
|
| Solid commuter car but not too annoying on the rare roadtrip.
|
| But, I am guessing grid frequency regulation use cases are
| going to make these too expensive for a car for a long time.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I missed the 10x charge speed- that is a killer feature that
| more than makes up for the reduced range.
| xaellison wrote:
| I wonder what that will mean for charging infrastructure
| that suddenly has to deliver 10x power to enable that. Not
| sure that sort of charging could be as ubiquitously placed
| as gas stations
| gpm wrote:
| Just have the same batteries in the charging station to
| smooth out power usage? Seems a lot cheaper and
| operationally less complex than a gas station.
| chabons wrote:
| This assumes that the same number of vehicles use the
| charging station. Lower charge times means potentially
| higher steady-state throughput.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Higher steady-state is mostly a good thing. You need to
| bulk up the power lines, but you're making good use of
| them and have lots of money to spend on them.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Having lots of money doesn't mean spending lots of money.
| Budgets often get cut for no good reason.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Okay, I mean I'm aware of that perfectly generic
| information but "sometimes management sucks" doesn't
| impact a feasibility analysis much. And this hypothetical
| station was already willing to spend on a lot on
| batteries.
| mech987876 wrote:
| I had an engineering colleague who previously worked at a
| company that reconditioned Prius batteries. It involved
| cycling powe in and out of the battery several times.
| Where did all that power come from? Another battery.
| EasyMark wrote:
| i doubt if the batteries can handle the type of surge
| output as the superchargers require.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If the car batteries can handle some amount of power,
| batteries on the other side can handle the same amount.
|
| Especially because the station would want to have
| multiple cars worth of energy stored, which means the
| load is divided among more cells and they don't have to
| work nearly as hard.
| pornel wrote:
| They easily do. Discharge rates are typically higher than
| charge rates. For stationary batteries it's all easier
| due to being able to have larger, more parallel
| batteries, and better cooling when weight is not a
| concern.
|
| Battery-backed charging stations are already common,
| because it allows use of cheaper grid interconnection,
| and use of cheaper off-peak or renewable energy.
| adverbly wrote:
| Those would need to get cycled a lot(many times per day).
| You might want one for your house if you wanted to charge
| quickly at home, but for charging stations, I think more
| realistically they'd have 10x less charging spots if each
| person was only there 1/10th the time.
|
| So the peak would be the same, but if there were too many
| customers then sort of like at a busy gas station people
| would be waiting for a spot rather than waiting for
| charging to complete.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > Those would need to get cycled a lot(many times per
| day).
|
| Fortunately these batteries have "an estimated lifespan
| of 50,000 cycles". Also, since there aren't super-
| dangerous elements in them, they should be much easier
| and cleaner to recycle/renew - especially with the giant
| recharge-station-scale ones' we're talking about, which
| could be designed specifically for that.
| jacob019 wrote:
| Indeed the charging cables are already massive. Just need
| some superconducting cables.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Liquid cooled cables aren't too bad.
|
| Megawatt charging system is big but doesn't seem
| _unreasonable_ , and that gives you 5x the amps. In two
| minutes it can add 80kWh to an 800 volt battery, and the
| max voltage is 1250.
|
| https://resources.news.e.abb.com/images/2023/5/12/0/Next_
| gen...
|
| https://www.engineerlive.com/sites/engineerlive/files/ITM
| .11...
| ItCouldBeWorse wrote:
| It just means the infrastructure gets the same cheap
| batteries as buffer.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Even today's charging can be severely lacking, imho
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Not that much, grids can and do deal with highly variable
| loads all the time, as all the heavy machinery involved
| in traditional power generation (=generators, gearboxes,
| axles, turbines) has _a lot_ of inertia that buffers
| sudden changes.
|
| However, as more and more generation capacity shifts to
| renewable sources that by design have very small (wind)
| to zero (solar) inertia, there will be a requirement to
| build out frequency stabilizer units like the Tesla unit
| in Hornsdale, Australia [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Advanced solar and wind inverters can also push back on
| grid changes to mimic inertia.
|
| Also I'd say the inertia in a normal wind turbine doesn't
| count because it's not tied into the grid frequency.
| crote wrote:
| Aren't batteries quite limited in their ability to
| provide synthetic inertia? Sure, they can respond on a
| second or tenth-of-second scale, but they don't provide
| the kind of instantaneous inertia you get from spinning
| rust. Inverters aren't exactly designed to just eat power
| surges, they'll instantly disconnect instead.
|
| That's why the UK grid has been building some "high-
| inertia synchronous compensators", and a 2019 outage
| showed that it's urgently needed.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| Can't you make them behave however you want with sub
| millisecond reaction time?
| jseutter wrote:
| Agreed, I just learned that the next formula for Formula E
| will eventually have charging stops. The spec will allow
| 5kwh of charge in 30 seconds, which is 10% SoC in their
| case. Pretty cool.
| LargeWu wrote:
| Sounds like their current strategy is stationary-only, i.e.
| not for use in vehicles, owing to the lower power density
| of sodium batteries. But that does not mean it's a problem
| that won't be solved in the future.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| My Model 3 already charges at 180kw. Are they saying cars
| built with these batteries will charge at 1.8Mw? How are
| they going to build charging infrastructure at that level?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40224937
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > But, I am guessing grid frequency regulation use cases are
| going to make these too expensive for a car for a long time.
|
| Not sure I follow here. Can you elaborate?
|
| Are you saying the the demand for sodium batteries for power
| grid backup is going to be high vs supply such that they're
| not going to make it into cars anytime soon? Isn't one of the
| Chinese EV makers starting to use sodium batteries?
| alemanek wrote:
| Yeah I am thinking grid applications will take up most of
| the available supply for the next few years. That
| charge/discharge speed makes it perfect for helping to
| stabilize the grid, frequency regulation, as well as for
| replacing peaker plants. Lithium batteries are already
| being used for these two applications but I think these
| sodium batteries would be better.
| jacob019 wrote:
| Depends on the production economics, how fast they scale,
| and what issues are discovered in real world use. There
| is some risk for everyone with new tech.
| kolinko wrote:
| The main blocker with ev charge speeds now is the charging
| station capacity though, no?
|
| Having said that - if we can get cheap and safe batteries
| installed within the charging stations, this would make for
| an awesome improvement
| ggreer wrote:
| Most charging stations already have lithium batteries
| installed as a buffer for the grid, and those batteries
| tend to be safer designs since there's no weight/density
| penalty for fixed infrastructure. Sodium batteries would
| just make charging stations cheaper to build.
|
| A lot of people tend to think of the ideal charging station
| as a gas station, where lots of cars go to quickly add
| range. But gas stations have large capacity because of
| their disadvantages. Ideally if they were safe, cheap, and
| compact, wouldn't you want gas stations everywhere? I'd
| love to have a gas station at home, in every parking
| garage, and at every scenic viewpoint on the road. The
| reason we don't have that is because gas stations emit
| toxic vapors and have giant tanks of combustible liquid.
| They need tanker trucks to regularly refuel them. Charging
| stations don't have those problems, which is why you can
| make them much smaller and put them almost anywhere. You
| don't even need a grid connection. Solar + batteries works
| in places where land is cheap.
| supercheetah wrote:
| Two minutes is about the amount of time it takes to fill my
| ICE car, so yeah, that'd be nice.
| jdewerd wrote:
| Yeah but do you have a gas station at home so it's "always
| full"? That's _really_ nice ;)
| rossjudson wrote:
| "You mean I can't just drive the car? I need to think
| about how to find fuel for it every couple of days? And
| then I have to drive there and hope nothing explodes?"
| jtriangle wrote:
| You certainly can, provided you have a truck, and a DOT
| certified fuel trailer, and a transfer pump.
|
| That system also allows you to participate in oil futures
| as an end user, not to mention it lets you keep your
| generator up and running for a very long time.
|
| Downside is, modern e10 gasoline tends to adsorb water
| from the air over time, so fuel isn't stable long term.
| Most guys doing this are running diesel cars/gensets for
| that reason.
|
| The model is, go to a truck depot with a 300 gallon
| trailer, fill up trailer and truck, park the trailer at
| home. Then fuel the truck off the trailer until it needs
| to be filled again, repeat. Do understand that, you can
| get a larger tank, but anything over 1000 gallons
| requires a placard/permit to haul around. That's in a
| single tank, so, in theory, a legal length 5th wheel
| trailer could have multiple tanks under that and be
| compliant. If you want the tanks attached to a vehicle
| itself, the maximum size is 150 gallons, hence why semi
| trucks have multiple fuel tanks that are smaller than
| that.
|
| Really the only difficulty is finding a place nearby that
| is willing to sell that much fuel to an individual.
| silisili wrote:
| Compelling to me also, as a person who has shied away from
| EVs because of charging time annoyances. I'd gladly trade the
| mileage for charging speed every time. Getting excited for
| what's to come.
| jdewerd wrote:
| Is charge time important because you can't install a L2
| charger at home / apartment to keep it "always charged" or
| because your usage pattern is too heavy duty for a 30
| minute break every 200-300mi?
|
| If it's just the former, the slow steady march of EV
| mindshare might solve your needs before the "L4" super-
| fast-charging battery. I am starting to see L2 chargers pop
| up in apartment parking lots, for example. IMO, "always
| charged" is significantly more convenient than short stops
| at a station, so it would still be desirable in a world
| where "L4" batteries and stations were common.
| silisili wrote:
| The latter, actually. I'd much prefer to stop for five
| minutes every 2 hours than 30 minutes every 4 hours.
| pornel wrote:
| The current state of the art is somewhere in between with
| 18 minutes per ~3 hours. It even helps to split charging
| into shorter sessions (2x 9 minutes), because batteries
| charge fastest when they're about 25% full.
|
| Keep in mind that EVs charge unattended, so you only
| spend a minute plugging in, and can leave to get a
| coffee, etc.
| silisili wrote:
| How 'guaranteed' is that rate? I don't keep up with it
| like I probably should, but seem to often read that some
| chargers are outdated, and sometimes you have to 'share'
| if somebody else is charging nearby?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'd prefer shorter times on road trip charging, too. But
| I still ended up buying an EV because I only need road
| trip fast charging a few times a year, and now I don't
| have to carve out 20 minutes every couple weeks to go
| find a gas station and fill up. The overall time savings
| for me is significant.
| jml78 wrote:
| I also think the roadtrip inconvenience is vastly
| overblown. Had an EV since 2018. It is our roadtrip car.
| It turns 12 hour roadtrips to 14 hour trips but if you
| plan around eating, it doesn't extend any trip by much.
|
| I still have a gas vehicle but I never want to use it for
| long trips.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| In my only attempted road trip with my EV, the only
| charger available within any reasonable distance of our
| destination failed to charge the car due to a "firmware
| issue" that they had been aware of for quite some time
| but did not bother to fix. We were unable to charge
| there. Luckily, we had enough juice to make it back to
| the charging station at our halfway point by turning off
| the climate control.
|
| So on a road trip that I only wanted to charge twice for,
| one of the stops didn't work. Oh, and on the way back we
| had to wait for access to the faster charger. Maybe not
| so overblown.
| zardo wrote:
| Yeah my concern with charging is more time and effort to
| get it to an open working charger than it is charge time.
| jtriangle wrote:
| It's very likely that we'll end up with tiered batteries in
| EV's before long. Some amount of the capacity will be fast
| charge/discharge, some amount of it will be capacity with
| slower charge/discharge with a higher density available.
|
| Think of it like modern SLC backed QLC flash storage. As
| long as the usage profile fits inside of the cache, it runs
| as though the entire system is cache.
| IshKebab wrote:
| 2 mins to charge a 40 kWh battery is 1.2 MW. I can't see that
| happening any time soon.
| cogman10 wrote:
| And I just don't think it's needed.
|
| You are almost certainly not charging from 0->100%. It's
| probably more like 10%->90% which gives you 32kW to charge.
| We currently have 350kW chargers on the market, they'd do
| that in ~6 minutes.
|
| At some point trying to get 2 minutes vs 6 minutes is just
| silly nit picking.
| chx wrote:
| Just install an SMR at every gas station. Problem solved!
| :P
| elihu wrote:
| Fast charge speeds make electrified highways a more viable
| option. There are some projects in Europe using overhead
| lines (for trucks) or power rails embedded in slots in the
| road surface (usable by cars or trucks) so that vehicles can
| recharge while moving. Building a network of electrified
| highways is expensive though.
|
| One way to reduce initial costs is not to electrify the whole
| length but to have, say, one mile of electrified road per
| every ten miles of highway. To get unlimited range from that
| 1:10 ratio, you need the vehicles to have batteries capable
| of absorbing power 9x faster than the vehicle uses it to
| maintain highway speeds.
|
| I could see EVs having a large lithium ion pack and, if this
| technology is really that good, a smaller sodium ion battery
| to act sort of like a capacitor to smooth out intermittent
| charging.
|
| I could also see low-capacity-high-power-density batteries
| being used in hybrids, though those need to be able to
| sustain high discharge rates as well as high charge rates,
| and I don't think the article mentioned discharge rates.
| dieortin wrote:
| Charging private vehicles while they move sounds very
| complicated
| robocat wrote:
| > to 80% again in 2min
|
| Needs say 720kW delivery for those two minutes (need higher
| if counting inefficiency losses).
|
| Note that Tesla 's V3 Superchargers provide a maximum of
| 250kW. I've assumed a 30kWh battery charged to 24kWh (80%),
| because the spec for a new Nissan Leaf is 59kWh battery for
| 385km driving range.
| alemanek wrote:
| Yeah we are for sure talking about the future here. There
| are already vehicles capable of handling 350kW chargers.
| Probably not too crazy to think that could double in the
| next decade.
|
| But I am definitely not expert on this.
| jwagenet wrote:
| This falls in line with a plug in hybrid being an excellent
| alternative to evs for most people. 30-50 miles of driving
| around town for work an errands, with an ICE for the occasional
| longer trip. Almost all driving will be electric without the
| charge anxiety.
| stevetodd wrote:
| My hesitation with hybrids is that I keep all the associated
| maintenance costs of an ICE engine. Now I have two power
| trains and energy systems to maintain instead of just one.
| tryptophan wrote:
| Just buy a toyota hybrid and have 0 worries to 200k miles
| then.
| aembleton wrote:
| One of the fuel injectors died at 190k miles in my Prius,
| so not quite 200k. At 210k now.
|
| Only other thing is that it is consuming more oil now so
| needs topping up every few thousand miles.
| holoduke wrote:
| But how often do you have issues with the engine. My last 3
| cars never had a single engine issues for at least 175.000
| miles. Its very rare today to have big engine issues.
| pixl97 wrote:
| It's the powertrain that's far more apt to be the
| problem. Hence a plugin hybrid generator style should be
| far simpler than a system with both an ICE and electric
| powertrain.
| saalweachter wrote:
| I'm not actually sure how many plug-in hybrids go for an
| all-electric power train, versus a dual power train.
|
| I know the Chevy Volt had an all-electric power train,
| and the ICE is purely a generator that dumps power into
| the electrical system, and the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
| has a dual power train, but I wasn't able to find a
| concise list of which hybrids have taken what strategy.
| genewitch wrote:
| parallel versus series hybrid. Series will have ICE
| generate and the only thing attached to the wheels is
| electric motors. Parallel (like the prius) the electric
| motor and the ICE are connected to the wheels. There are
| reasons for both, but freight trains in the US are
| series. In my opinion, series is probably the best, since
| you can engineer the ICE to be as clean and efficient as
| possible at exactly 1 RPM setting - making them last
| longer to boot.
|
| I apologize for forgetting the benefits of parallel
| hybrid systems, but i know there are some, including
| needing a smaller ICE, all things equal.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| For most Toyota hybrids they use a single planetary gear
| set to combine electric motors and a gas engine into a
| single unit. That's the entire transmission. It's far
| more efficient than bolting a generator on an electric
| car.
|
| For climate control, they are nearly identical to a gas
| Toyota.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The funniest part is that the way Toyota hybrid
| powertrains work, if either the ICE or electric motor
| doesn't work, you cannot go anywhere. It's LESS
| systemically reliable than either a purely ICE or purely
| electric powertrain, and yet STILL Toyota hybrids are
| some of the most reliable cars you can buy.
|
| Their engineering is just that insanely conservative.
| They just make giant, absurdly understressed engines. You
| can pull a 2.5L 4cyl engine out of a Camry, designed to
| make 180 horsepower, replace only a few components, and
| make 400hp with the reliability you would normally expect
| from an engine built for endurance racing. They are super
| popular in drift racing leagues.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Clearly you're not buying quirky over-engineered German
| cars loaded with exotic but mostly useless luxury
| features. They are well built and last forever, but
| typically require _very_ frequent tinkering to keep them
| working.
| jeffbee wrote:
| That is just a meme without substance. The ongoing
| maintenance cost of a mature Japanese ICE drivetrain is
| negligible compared to the overall operating costs of the
| whole car. There is a reason why Toyota hybrids are by far
| the most popular cars for Uber drivers.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Total cost of ownership of a Toyota hybrid is less than
| many other entirely ICE cars lol
| jeffbee wrote:
| True. I think people just over-estimate the cost of an
| ICE drivetrain. Yes, they have thousands of parts. But
| they don't cost anything to build. It's Japan's whole
| thing. You can get an entire Prius long block engine in a
| crate delivered for $2k. This is about half the cost of 1
| headlight assembly from a Model S. Cost is not about
| complexity, it is about scale.
| pkulak wrote:
| Well, hybrids sometimes get to replace the transmission
| with EV bits, like Toyota's system. Imagine an engine and
| exhaust system; now multiply the complexity by 100 and you
| have a modern transmission. Toyota hybrids (and
| GM/Chrystler/Honda) replace all that with a single
| planetary gearset, or with Honda, one clutch.
|
| Other systems, think Volvo, pop the EV bits in the back of
| the car and replace where the drive shaft used to be with
| batteries. That seems like a decent trade to me as well.
| Still have a transmission, but at least it's not purely
| additive.
|
| AND one man's added complexity is another's redundancy. If
| the charging module goes bad in a hybrid, you can still
| drive. Or if you run out of gas.
|
| All that said... I still prefer EVs to hybrids. Do one
| thing, do it well, I say!
| mulmen wrote:
| Modern transmissions can't be two orders of magnitude
| more complicated than a modern ICE. If they are then I
| need to get into transmission design. An automatic
| transmission is basically just a series of planetary
| gears anyway. I would expect the marginal complexity
| between an ICE transmission and a hybrid transmission to
| be within a multiple of 2, but closer to parity. They're
| both extremely reliable but an EV transmission (gearbox)
| will be even simpler.
| hnav wrote:
| The thing that mechanically totals modern crap cars
| (think cheap Nissans and Subarus) is often the CVT. Ford
| and GM have transmission problems pretty often. GP is
| totally right that the planetary eCVTs actually make cars
| way simpler. Look at Ford's (horrendous reputation with
| small cars) hybrids from the 2010s, lots of them running
| around with 300k on the clock.
| SmellTheGlove wrote:
| > (think cheap Nissans and Subarus)
|
| You don't even need to limit it to the lower end models
| with Subaru. The top trim Outback and Ascent have a CVT
| these days. If you want an automatic transmission in your
| WRX, same thing - a CVT. Anyway, you're not wrong.
| mulmen wrote:
| A CVT is even simpler than an automatic. They may be less
| reliable but not necessarily more complicated.
| pkulak wrote:
| I dunno, maybe 100x was an exaggeration, but not by much!
| Take a look at this transmission from 2007. They haven't
| gotten simpler. Lot's of cars are sporting 10-speeds
| these days.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission#/med
| ia/...
| mulmen wrote:
| The number of speeds is a function of the number of
| planetary gearsets. They're just connected in series.
| More speed's isn't more complex, it's only a larger part
| count. By the time the transmission is computer
| controlled and has two speeds it's as complex as it's
| going to be.
|
| Modern ICE are also extremely complex. Turbo systems,
| sensors, air management, hear management, the list goes
| on.
|
| So yeah, a modern transmission is complex but a modern
| ICE isn't simple. By comparison they're very similar in
| terms of complexity, the ICE possibly being even more
| complex.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I'd avoid any car with two powertrains, but there are
| systems that have an all electric powertrain with the ICE
| being used as a generator instead. It is a simplified
| system that, if designed correctly, can allow all battery
| or all generator to move the vehicle.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Other than spark plugs, belts, oil changes and other such
| consumables I don't remember having to do any engine
| maintenance on my cars for the last 10 years. Of course, it
| helps that I am buyer of boring Toyotas and Hondas.
|
| But all those costs are correlated with engine hours, in a
| hybrid used most of the time for commuting, ICE engine
| hours would be really low
| adrianmonk wrote:
| You do, but at least repair costs should be low because
| typically you won't put very many miles on that engine.
|
| Suppose 90% of your miles are electric. After you've put
| 250K miles (400K km) on the car, you've only got 25K miles
| (40K km) on the engine. Rarely do you have significant
| engine trouble at that mileage.
|
| Also, the engine design can probably be simplified if it's
| just acting as a generator. You don't need a turbo to
| provide extra bursts of power. Nor things like variable
| valve timing for good performance across a wide range of
| RPMs. Maybe you could even use an air-cooled engine like
| old VW Beetles and Porsches.
| bonton89 wrote:
| I wish they'd just sell/rent little trailers with a
| charging engine on them you could take on long trips.
| jtriangle wrote:
| I know that tesla's won't allow you to drive while
| charging the car. It throws an error if it's plugged in,
| so, that's a no-go without significant hackery.
|
| That said, they certainly have tow-behind generators, and
| they're certainly available for rent, it's just without
| modification you'd have to stop in order to charge. I've
| seen people with a model X doing exactly this out in the
| desert. Seemed to be an ok solution honestly, because
| they were camping and had genset power for camping needs,
| assuming of course that the whole electricity while
| camping thing is something you're into.
| brnt wrote:
| Some hybrids don't, they just have a very small engine that
| charges the battery.
| hnav wrote:
| A lot of maintenance items simply don't exist in a modern
| full hybrid. Typically there is no accessory belt, no
| alternator, no starter. Filters, coils, spark plugs and
| engine oil will last longer since the engine doesn't run
| nearly as hot (usually it's "atkinson" cycle) and isn't
| used constantly.
| pfdietz wrote:
| And brakes last longer, since they aren't used nearly as
| much.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Yeah, they seem like a nice solution. The good plug-in EVs
| are still too new and expensive for me, so I had an old ICE
| vehicle _and_ an old EV. They were both actually the exact
| same car model in the same color even, the ICE and EV
| versions of it.
| GaggiX wrote:
| I believe that most people with a plug in hydrid actually
| forget to plug the car in, so the car is almost never in
| electric.
| simplyluke wrote:
| That is... debatable. The study that showed that came out
| of Europe, where a huge percentage of cars purchased new
| are fleet vehicles, and not owned by individuals/families.
| Why would I plug a company car in when I pay my electric
| bill but have a corporate card for gas?
| EasyMark wrote:
| I like the idea of a hybrid, but I need around 100 miles to
| make it worth the transition for me, otherwise I'll just go
| all electric or stay part of the problem. I still need the
| EVs to come under 30k to make sense, as that's the upper
| limit I set on vehicle cost for the present.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| From the article, these are estimated at 70 Wh/kg. Pretty
| abysmal for EVs, but the trade-offs likely aren't too
| undesirable for home battery backups or utility-scale
| batteries.
| Gare wrote:
| From what I can gather, 160 Wh/kg is currently possible with
| sodium-ion, maybe even a bit more in the future.
| sircastor wrote:
| I still drive a low ranged early EV (2012 Leaf) and it still
| works very well for me (we probably get about 35 miles of real
| range per charge.) I would be delighted if I could replace the
| battery with something like this.
|
| I worry that I'll never see a compatible replacement battery
| with the tech though.
| amelius wrote:
| The problem is that these batteries are much heavier.
| pnw wrote:
| My first EV was a Volt which had only ~30 miles of EV range
| before it switched to gas. I bought it because I was EV curious
| but worried about range and I got a crazy cheap lease from GM.
| I drove it for three years and did a few short road trips. When
| I returned it, my total driving stats: 99% on electrons.
| brnt wrote:
| Hybrids get a bad rep. It makes for such a difference:
| knowing that you don't need to worry about that 1%.
| karmajunkie wrote:
| The argument against hybrids that's always resonated with
| me is that you get the maintenance costs of a gasoline
| engine with the upfront costs of a battery. I've owned a
| Leaf and found it relatively trouble-free but never a
| hybrid. Am I just buying into FUD there?
| brnt wrote:
| Prius are pretty well known for being cheap to drive for
| a long while no?
|
| Sure, they are always going to be more complex than a
| full electric but good gasoline cars are don't have any
| huge maintenance costs for a good long while.
| w1nst0nsm1th wrote:
| The problem lies on electric grid capacity. If we're phasing
| out fossil fuel powered transportation, we will have to upgrade
| massivelly electricity productions well as in grid capacity.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent
| years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation's peak demand
| has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy
| efficiency.
|
| > Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate
| demand would only increase by around 10%. So we'd still be
| using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is
| well within the range the grid can capably handle.
|
| > In the US, the grid is equally capable of handling more EVs
| on the roads - by the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this
| will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity
| consumption.1
|
| https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-
| zero/ele...
| hedora wrote:
| The way I think about this is that I use an L1 charger at
| home that draws 1500 watts about half the time (on a normal
| day).
|
| That's ~= 15 light bulbs from the 1990's, or roughly 6
| desktop PCs. I switched from incandescent to LED bulbs, and
| a desktop to a laptop, so that's almost enough to offset
| the EV's usage. Also, we have solar panels, and a house
| battery that can time shift our energy consumption.
| chx wrote:
| A modern fridge and washing machine are both vastly more
| efficient, too.
| rossjudson wrote:
| Switching overnight is a silly scenario, and I agree we
| shouldn't pay much attention there.
|
| The power grid also naturally grows from year to year. As
| more and more battery systems come online and are available
| to store and discharge power (your car, a household power
| backup system, solar, etc), the load on _the grid_ will
| smooth out.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| 100 mile range battery - that's about 30kwh or a whopping $1500
| worth of battery cells. ICE won't be able to compete to this.
| spaceguillotine wrote:
| that much range currently costs about $6000 for a Nissan
| replacement. Rumors are a longer range current EV battery
| like in the Ioniq is $50k to replace.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I don't expect replacements to drop in price.
|
| Also that's just cell cost. It takes quite a bit to
| assemble a pack, plus profit margin.
|
| p.s. I doubt that rumour, unless Hyundai really likes to
| milk their customers. Teslas largest packs are less than
| 20k. Small ones less than 10k (which is how much I save per
| year because power is cheap and gas is expensive here).
| Salgat wrote:
| In my experience the miles they advertise are no where near the
| reality. My Model Y has never given me 320 miles on a charge
| and it's not like gas stations where you can hit one up at the
| last moment, on a trip you gotta start finding a charger once
| you hit around 20-25% charge left.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Why do people need 200 mile range for an EV?
|
| For example, my daily mileage averages about 5 miles. As an
| errand-runner, a 30 mile EV would be very practical. The huge
| benefit of this is a smaller and cheaper battery, and the
| biggie - much less weight. Much less weight leads to much less
| tire/brake wear and tire/brake dust pollution.
|
| I'd still have a second gas car for the trips.
| mbgerring wrote:
| Some people (including myself) only need cars for long-
| distance trips where air or train travel is not feasible, and
| for most people, even if their car is mainly a grocery-
| getter, _psychologically_ , they want to know they can drive
| across the country with it.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Most people do not want to have to own two cars.
| WalterBright wrote:
| There are a wide variety of cars to suit various needs.
| There's a large place for a lightweight 30mi EV. Especially
| for people who don't want to pay the huge premium for a 7x
| times more expensive battery.
| astrange wrote:
| If you rarely need to take long distance trips you can rent
| a car that does it.
| mbar84 wrote:
| It would be really nice if there were a battery technology that
| could charge 100 miles in a few minutes, even if that meant you
| would be constantly charging on longer trips.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > I imagine a lot of people, that would be totally acceptable
| if it means lower cost, and batteries that effectively last
| forever without replacement.
|
| MBAs at car manufacturing companies will ensure that battery
| pack cost savings are NOT passed on to the consumer, don't
| worry about that.
|
| We were supposed to hit $100/KWh on battery packs several years
| ago, but EV prices skyrocketed instead, despite literally being
| in the same plastic/aluminum shitbox where every car looks
| alike.
|
| Cheap battery packs = higher margins for companies.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| If I'm reading this page[1] correctly they are playing fast-and-
| loose with the power-density numbers. Compared to Li-Ion shows 4x
| the power-per-Wh, but is about 1/4 the energy density, so the
| power density (in Watts/g) is about the same as Li-Ion?
|
| [edit]
|
| That page links a data-sheet that claims ~500W/kg which is much
| better than LFP, I couldn't find any reliable numbers for NMC,
| but I suspect its more than half of that?
| mlhpdx wrote:
| It seems like these could have some great advantages for use in
| sailboats, both house and propulsion (weight matters a lot less
| in a bit). The fire safety, rapid recharge (from engine), and
| higher power than lead-acid are pretty great. What am I missing?
| jvdvegt wrote:
| So, with about 10.000 kg of these in my basement (2MWh capacity),
| I should be mostly self-sufficient? Nice! (4MWh electricity usage
| per year, with solar panels producing slightly more)
| margalabargala wrote:
| Why would you need storage for half of your annual electricity
| usage to be self-sufficient? It seems like you could achieve
| that with far, far less battery, perhaps combined with slightly
| more solar.
| jvdvegt wrote:
| Our panels produced a mere 60kWh in december. We've got 6
| months where we use more than we produce. Storing 50% was a
| quick estimate as for what we'd need. Anybody got better
| numbers for that?
| jvdvegt wrote:
| These numbers are easy to compute myself. For the 6 months
| my panels did not produce enough electricity, we used a
| total of 2.1MWh from the grid. So my 50% guestimate was
| actually spot on :)
| margalabargala wrote:
| Well there you go :)
|
| If you have the land for it, you might find it mildly
| more cost effective to ground-mount solar panels at a
| steeper angle to optimize for wintertime production,
| which would allow you to shrink the battery. Installing
| 10000 kg of batteries in a home isn't something likely to
| ever be super easy.
| genewitch wrote:
| i use between 1 and 2 MWh a month... Do you live underground
| and not have anything electronic? 1000KWh is 1MWh. I guess if
| one has all natural gas appliances and no need for air
| conditioning it's possible to get down to 333KWh a month.
|
| i have owned and ran computers that used more than that a
| month, for goodness' sake.
| jvdvegt wrote:
| This is a family of 5 in the mid-Europe. We don't use
| electricity for heating or cooling, and we're still burning
| gasoline to drive around. These are pretty normal numbers
| around here.
| hoerensagen wrote:
| Between 1 and 2 MWh per year isnt that unusual.
|
| For example in Germany the average per person per year is
| 1.3MWh.
| genewitch wrote:
| that's 100KWh per month, which is ~3KWh per day. that's the
| equivalent of leaving a 100W incandescent bulb and a 100W
| equivalent LED bulb on for 24 hours a day.
|
| You're telling me that the AVERAGE usage in germany is 1.25
| incandescent bulbs 24/7?
|
| my LAPTOP uses more power than that!
| papercrane wrote:
| I don't think it's feasible to store your summer excess long
| term like that. It would be cheaper to add more panels to
| produce enough power in the winter and having enough battery
| capacity to last you a few days in case of bad weather.
| sohamgovande wrote:
| Really excited to see that the battery is entering production.
| Feels like every year we hear about new batteries in the lab that
| are "2x-5x as efficient as Lithium ion" but they never seem to
| actually hit production.
|
| [1] https://www.yahoo.com/tech/engineers-created-
| revolutionary-b...
|
| [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-
| ran...
|
| [3] https://news.mit.edu/2022/aluminum-sulfur-battery-0824
| cogman10 wrote:
| Na batteries are going to be a huge deal. Assuming everything
| pans out with manufacturing, this will be a game changer for
| grid storage. Natural gas likely won't be cheaper than doing a
| battery plant which will be a big deal for peaker plants.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Sodium is quite plentiful, and it doesn't need mining. Sodium
| batteries, if competitive, would be quite a revolution.
| NegativeK wrote:
| I was under the impression that sodium is produced from salt,
| which is mined.
| blkhawk wrote:
| uh... you could buy them for at least a year now from Chinese
| productions - prices started high and were at maybe 3x of similar
| sized lifepo4 cells about 2 months ago when I grabbed 2 for
| experiments.
| can16358p wrote:
| > can be procured through a reliable US-based domestic supply
| chain free from geopolitical disruption. The same cannot be said
| for common lithium-ion materials like cobalt and nickel.
|
| This is good... only for the US. The world doesn't need another
| industry where US solely is a monopoly.
| philipkglass wrote:
| Most countries in the world don't have their own cobalt or
| nickel mines, so it's good for all those countries too.
| Foomf wrote:
| I think the article was saying that these batteries are
| buildable with easy-to-find materials for anyone, USA included.
| I don't think there's anything in them that can only be found
| in the United States.
| margalabargala wrote:
| The article is written from a US point of view.
|
| Most other countries also have access to the relevant
| materials, since most countries are not landlocked.
|
| Sodium battery production may pair nicely with desalination
| plants.
| agrocrag wrote:
| Are we still a ways out on being able to buy these for consumer
| use? Looks like most of the sales partners are
| industrial/commercial use. Couldn't dig up anything on their site
| about home use.
| topspin wrote:
| All of the initial production from this plant is spoken for.
| Part of the deal that secured the funding, exemptions, fast-
| tracking, tax breaks, etc. is a big public utility battery
| facility in the state (MI).
| EasyMark wrote:
| do these batteries burn in a mostly uncontrollable way like
| lithium ion?
| philipkglass wrote:
| No, they are not flammable. Here's a datasheet for one of their
| products (from the Wayback Machine, because this link is now
| dead on their website -- maybe resource moved and not indexed
| yet):
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230402215314/https://natron.en...
|
| Highlighted points include:
|
| _Nonflammable Chemistry & Construction_
|
| _UL9540A 'Champion' rated nonflammable with no thermal runaway
| under any condition_
|
| _Safe and Fault Tolerant: No Fire or Explosion During
|
| - Heating
|
| - Overcharge
|
| - Short Circuit
|
| - Nail Penetration _
| contemporary343 wrote:
| This is a great entrepreneurial story too. Colin began this
| company out of his PhD research at Stanford a decade ago. A long,
| steady grind and finally out to production. Kudos to him and his
| team - a very rare accomplishment, and inspiring to see.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Great video about sodium batteries (including solid state)
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAJSH_raW8
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Exciting stuff!
|
| How does it compare to lithium if a battery is punctured or
| exposed? More or less toxic / flammable?
| squigglydonut wrote:
| Inspired by Breaking Bad no doubt.
| gregwebs wrote:
| China is already scaling their sodium battery production from MWH
| plants to GWH plants. The US has the largest sodium reserves in
| the world. In depth interview about sodium batteries with a
| professor that has researched sodium chemistries for a decade:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAJSH_raW8
| WalterBright wrote:
| I remember a 60 Minutes segment some time back on batteries made
| out of saltwater and dirt. They would be ideal for grid scale
| batteries, because although the energy density of those batteries
| is low, that's irrelevant because very large batteries could be
| cheap and easy to make. The batteries don't have to be portable.
|
| This is what baffles me about Li batteries for grid use. Using
| high energy / weight is very costly and completely irrelevant for
| grid batteries.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > This is what baffles me about Li batteries for grid use
|
| It's not super baffling when you realize the other properties
| of Li make it way better than pretty much anything currently on
| the market (the important part).
|
| Li has amazing cycle life with a wide operating range. Li like
| LFP and LTO have insane cycle life. Pair that with the superior
| capacity and the fact that Li doesn't have problems like the
| memory effect and it quickly starts to become apparent why it
| dominates grid storage.
|
| There's simply not been a better available rechargeable battery
| tech on the market. Sodium will change that.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The cycle life is not an issue with a battery made of
| seawater and dirt, because dirt is - cheap as dirt! Capacity
| comes from making an arbitrarily large such battery - it's
| not like it has to fit into a car.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > 600 megawatts annually
|
| No.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-03 23:01 UTC)