[HN Gopher] The first sodium-ion battery EV is a winter range mo...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The first sodium-ion battery EV is a winter range monster
        
       Author : andrewjneumann
       Score  : 114 points
       Date   : 2026-02-08 17:15 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (insideevs.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (insideevs.com)
        
       | pkulak wrote:
       | If this is "on par" with LFP energy density, I'm not sure there's
       | any need for LFP now. Sodium ion seems to thoroughly beat it in
       | every other metric.
        
         | woeirua wrote:
         | I haven't seen any info on charging speed. Can you recharge
         | these as quickly as LFP?
        
           | jillesvangurp wrote:
           | CATL's Naxtra cells apparently have a c rating of 5C. Which
           | boils down to about 12 minutes for a full charge with the
           | right charger. So, as fast or faster than LFP would be the
           | answer here.
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | If they have a 5C rating from 0 to 100 that would be a real
             | game changer. I look forward to the days we don't need
             | caveats like "only up to 80%".
        
         | loeg wrote:
         | On par on a per kg basis, but is it on par on a volume basis?
         | If it takes up more space, that might pose packaging challenges
         | relative to LFP.
        
           | adrian_b wrote:
           | Sodium has greater density than lithium, while most other
           | materials used in a battery have similar densities regardless
           | if sodium or lithium is used, so if a Na-ion battery and a
           | LFP battery have about the same mass and stored energy, it is
           | likely that the sodium-ion battery has a smaller volume.
        
             | PunchyHamster wrote:
             | that doesn't check out, capacity depends on surface area,
             | if the element that is on the surface is heavier then, all
             | other things equal, the battery will be heavier for same
             | kWh.
             | 
             | Sodium would need to be more efficient to be lighter, which
             | it isn't
        
               | adrian_b wrote:
               | The maximum deliverable power depends on electrode area,
               | through the maximum current density.
               | 
               | The capacity of storing energy does not depend at all on
               | area, but only on the mass of sodium contained in the
               | battery and on the efficiency of using it (i.e. between
               | full discharge and full charge not 100% of the sodium or
               | lithium is cycled between the 2 oxidation states, but a
               | fraction, e.g. 90%).
               | 
               | Any battery has both an energy density and a power
               | density, which are weakly correlated and the correlation
               | may have opposite signs, i.e. for some batteries it may
               | be possible to increase the power density if the energy
               | density is lowered and vice-versa.
               | 
               | For a given stored energy in kWh, the required mass of
               | sodium is several times greater than the corresponding
               | mass of lithium, by a factor that is the product of the
               | atomic mass ratio with the ratio between the battery
               | voltages. The voltages are similar, with a slight
               | advantage for sodium, so the required mass of sodium is
               | about 3 times the corresponding mass of lithium.
               | 
               | If the complete batteries have about the same mass, that
               | means that other components of the sodium-ion battery are
               | smaller and/or lighter.
        
           | Joel_Mckay wrote:
           | Energy density of Na cells is lower, but it is the viable
           | charge cycle count that is the show stopper issue for most
           | markets. =3
        
             | cogman10 wrote:
             | They are also safer.
             | 
             | Na will be big in grid storage, it's a perfect fit.
        
               | Joel_Mckay wrote:
               | It is all about cost and efficiency... There is a classic
               | 1913 electric vehicle that ran NiFe packs for many years,
               | and were only replaced because the container rotted away.
               | Sustainable storage costs real money, but has existed for
               | over a century. =3
               | 
               | https://www.veva.ca/1913detroitelectric
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery
        
         | adrian_b wrote:
         | I have no idea about the characteristics of these new sodium-
         | ion batteries, but there is a great likelihood that they auto-
         | discharge much faster than LFP batteries.
         | 
         | This means that if you do not use the car for some time, you
         | may need to recharge it before you can use it again. This may
         | be a problem if the car is left far from a charger.
         | 
         | Otherwise I agree with what you said.
        
       | lightedman wrote:
       | I suspect we will be finding this technology being used a fair
       | bit in aerospace tech like satellites to compliment the onboard
       | solar, given the low-temp operational capability.
        
         | gpm wrote:
         | Do satellite batteries run cold?
         | 
         | Given the difficulty of radiating heat away I would have
         | expected the opposite.
         | 
         | Especially considering the incentive to send up as little
         | battery as possible, and the very predictable day/night cycle
         | leading to the ability to precisely predict how small a battery
         | you can get away with...
        
           | rcxdude wrote:
           | Generally it's hard to control: it'll be hot sometimes and
           | cold other times, so a wide operating time is useful.
        
       | letharion wrote:
       | What I wanted to know from the article:                 The CATL
       | Naxtra sodium-ion battery will debut in the Changan Nevo A06
       | sedan, delivering an estimated range of around 400 kilometers
       | (249 miles) on the China Light-Duty Test Cycle.
       | 
       | and                  It delivers 175 watt-hours per kilogram of
       | energy density, which is lower than nickel-rich chemistries but
       | roughly on par with LFP
        
         | johanvts wrote:
         | Thanks, I wanted to know about price. Isn't that the main
         | benefit of sodium-ion. On par energy density with LFP, but a
         | lot cheaper.
        
           | PunchyHamster wrote:
           | *potentially a lot cheaper.
           | 
           | I've seen that repeated a lot but I still can't buy sodium
           | batteries cheaper than lifepo...
        
             | wirybeige wrote:
             | Sodium batteries don't yet have the scale that lifepo4
             | batteries have. I'd expect we will see them get cheaper.
        
       | Flavius wrote:
       | Retaining 90% range at -40degC sounds like a game changer, almost
       | too good to be true. I'm definitely going to need to see some
       | third-party real-world range tests to validate those claims
       | before getting too excited.
        
         | tedd4u wrote:
         | And human occupants will still run the heater more in winter.
         | But it sounds like there could be a future where makers offer a
         | sodium battery and heat pump version of their cars for sale in
         | colder climates.
        
           | rootusrootus wrote:
           | > future where makers offer a sodium battery and heat pump
           | version
           | 
           | AFAIK most EVs already use heat pumps today, so the future
           | happens whenever sodium batteries become mainstream.
        
             | cosmic_cheese wrote:
             | IIRC there are some surprising holdouts, at least in the NA
             | market. For example as far as I'm aware the Mustang Mach-E
             | still ships with a resistive heater.
        
           | jopsen wrote:
           | I think our id.4 2023 model already has that. It has crappy
           | software too. Great car, drives fantastically, but horrific
           | software!
           | 
           | But if they add buttons back as planned, I might be willing
           | to try a new id.4 in 5-10 years.
        
           | metalman wrote:
           | Running a preheater loop for the heat pump from the systems
           | than need to be cooled, inverter and motor that run better
           | cold,and other optimisations could likely supply cabin heat
           | with very little battery draw, solar pv blended into the
           | exterior could zero that out on an average basis,but 40 below
           | is nothing to play with unless you know exactly what you are
           | doing, even if they say it will still work.
           | 
           | https://electrek.co/2026/02/05/first-sodium-ion-battery-
           | ev-d...
        
         | epistasis wrote:
         | Gasoline engines are already 15% less efficient at 20F.
         | 
         | https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/fuel-economy-cold-weather
         | 
         | At -40F (-40C), it's generally good practice to just stay
         | inside and not drive at all...
        
           | seiferteric wrote:
           | > Gasoline engines are already 15% less efficient at 20F.
           | 
           | Is that actually true once the engine has reached operating
           | temperature?
        
             | helterskelter wrote:
             | The temperature difference should in principle increase
             | thermodynamic efficiency. You get loss of MPG from other
             | factors though mentioned in the link, like increased
             | friction of moving parts, idling to warm up (0MPG),
             | defrosters/seat heaters, lower tire pressure, denser air to
             | drive through, winter fuel mixes which may not have as much
             | energy, etc.
        
             | number6 wrote:
             | Well you have to keep it at operating temperature
        
             | jurgenburgen wrote:
             | Assuming you can get the car to start (mine needs an engine
             | warmer at that temperature), it takes at least 15 minutes
             | of driving to reach that temperature. Unless you're going
             | on a longer trip the engine most likely wont be warm by the
             | time you reach your destination.
        
               | gambiting wrote:
               | Garages exist though.
        
               | dtgriscom wrote:
               | Heated ones are rarer.
        
               | yencabulator wrote:
               | I once had a condo with parking in a cave that was above
               | freezing even when outside was -30 C (or F, close enough
               | at that part of the scale). It was a great winter perk.
        
               | thebruce87m wrote:
               | Schrodingers garage. Ceases to exists when talking about
               | EV charging but exists when ICE vehicles need cold
               | starts.
        
               | yetihehe wrote:
               | I had to drive in -30C once, the engine could not get up
               | to final temperature after 2 hours of highway driving
               | because I had to run cabin heater at full blast on
               | windshield and side windows so they didn't cover with fog
               | inside. But that was in very old low power car.
        
             | epistasis wrote:
             | Short trips are worse:
             | 
             | > Fuel economy tests show that, in city driving, a
             | conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is roughly 15%
             | lower at 20degF than it would be at 77degF. It can drop as
             | much as 24% for short (3- to 4-mile) trips.
        
             | colechristensen wrote:
             | There are a bunch of things going on, and some people's
             | measure of efficiency needs work.
             | 
             | 1) winter blend fuels have less energy per volume, that
             | doesn't make your engine any less efficient by energy but
             | it does by volume of gas
             | 
             | 2) lots of temporary cold effects: fuel vaporization, thick
             | lubricants, etc. these things become less of a problem as
             | the engine warms up but some energy is still lost on long
             | drives
             | 
             | 3) air resistance: all aerodynamic forces are linearly
             | proportional with air density. At a constant pressure
             | there's about a 15% difference in air density between the
             | hottest and coldest places you can drive (and thus 15% less
             | drag on a hot summer day than a cold winter day).
             | aerodynamic forces are proportional to the square of your
             | velocity and they become the largest resistive force around
             | 50mph -- so at highway speeds you're losing efficiency
             | because you have to push more air out of the way
             | 
             | 4) energy used to maintain temperature: this is hard to
             | calculate but some engine power is lost because the energy
             | is used heating up the engine block and lost to the
             | environment
             | 
             | 5) the Thermodynamics 101 engine efficiency goes UP with
             | increased temperature, but it's got a lot of real world
             | effects to compete with, no spherical cows and all
        
               | anjel wrote:
               | Partial pressure variant fx on combustion outputs
        
             | mylifeandtimes wrote:
             | Once had a Porsche 914. Air cooled engine. Drove it across
             | Montana and the Dakotas one winter. One very cold winter.
             | 
             | Not sure the engine ever reached "operating temperature" on
             | that drive.
        
           | superjan wrote:
           | That 15% loss reduces your range from 1000km to 850km? That
           | hardly affects how useful the vehicle is. For EV that's
           | different story.
        
             | epistasis wrote:
             | How many vehicles have a 650 mile range? Almost none. Plus
             | you can't fill up at home with gasoline, like you can with
             | an EV.
        
               | gambiting wrote:
               | You mean EVs? Yeah, none that I'm aware of. But
               | petrol/diesel cars? Loads of them. Even my 400bhp Volvo
               | XC60 will easily do 650 miles on one tank of fuel. A
               | diesel one will do 700-800. And a diesel Passat will go
               | over 1000 miles on a tank without trying. Hell, even my
               | basic 1.6dCI Qashqai could do 700 miles on its 55 litre
               | tank
        
               | cherry_tree wrote:
               | Volvo xc60 has an estimated 25 mpg overall
               | (https://www.volvocarsrichmond.com/volvo-xc60-mpg.htm)
               | 
               | It has an 18.8 gallon fuel capacity (https://www.volvocar
               | s.com/lb/support/car/xc60/article/dfc6f0...)
               | 
               | That's a max range of 470 miles. You would need much
               | greater fuel efficiency above 34 mpg to get to 650 miles
               | on an 18.8 gallon tank.
        
               | gambiting wrote:
               | Cool, I guess when I did 700 miles on a single tank of
               | fuel driving Switzerland to Italy and then again driving
               | Italy to Austria and then again Austria to Netherlands
               | this summer I just imagined it. My total for the 3000
               | miles was 38mpg(imperial).
               | 
               | Also you are quoting a value for the B5, which is not
               | what I have, mine is a T8(and before you ask - no, I
               | didn't have any opportunity to charge it anywhere on the
               | way).
        
               | PunchyHamster wrote:
               | you can have drum of fuel enough for entire winter in
               | your garage, the fuck you mean by "can't fill up at
               | home"?
        
               | thebruce87m wrote:
               | They mean that rounded to the nearest percent, 0% of
               | people will be filling up their car at home from a drum.
        
               | baq wrote:
               | Every modern passenger car will show you 650 miles when
               | driving at ~60mph. In the EU, anyway, and with a diesel
               | engine.
        
               | tbrownaw wrote:
               | > _How many vehicles have a 650 mile range? Almost none._
               | 
               | '22 Ford Escape hybrid
               | 
               | The remaining miles thing shows less than that on a full
               | tank, but I've been pretty consistently getting
               | upper-600s between fill-ups.
               | 
               | I suppose it would probably be less if I went on the
               | interstate more.
        
               | epistasis wrote:
               | There's one. Go to a Car and Driver article about cars
               | with extreme ranges, namely those over 650 miles, and
               | they will start listing out particular years' models over
               | a 10 year period in order to get to even ~10 models, and
               | most of them are EcoBoost or variants or poor selling
               | hybrid versions of other cars.
               | 
               | Assuming a 1000km range is a very strange thing to do, as
               | it's a fringe feature that almost no one needs or wants!
               | Recall that "almost no one" means that there's still
               | some, an existence of a handful of people on HN is quite
               | consistent with "almost none."
        
               | tbrownaw wrote:
               | Of course I didn't pick it for range, I looked at price
               | and miles of what the local carmax had and then
               | separately looked up how tall the top of the windshield
               | was.
               | 
               | Which I would expect to typically find something that's,
               | um, fairly typical on characteristics I wasn't selecting
               | on.
        
               | consp wrote:
               | Comparing range of gasoline cars is idiotic. There are
               | plenty of cars with long range (1000km), and they all
               | have 60L+ fuel tanks and most run on diesel (which gives
               | you ~15% more range per liter). It'd even argue the same
               | for BEVs. More battery is more range.
        
         | teraflop wrote:
         | Note that this article's summary has a significant error
         | compared to the original press release[1]. The article says
         | "90% range", whereas the press release says "90% capacity
         | retention".
         | 
         | This is a big difference because there are all kinds of other
         | factors besides energy capacity that can affect the
         | _efficiency_ of the whole system, and therefore affect range.
         | 
         | Most notably, air is about 28% denser at -40degC than at
         | 25degC, so drag is about 28% higher. So you would expect
         | roughly 28% less range at high speeds even if the battery has
         | no capacity loss whatsoever.
         | 
         | As someone else mentioned, climate control also consumes a lot
         | more power when it has to maintain a larger temperature
         | difference between inside and outside.
         | 
         | [1]: https://www.catl.com/en/news/6720.html
        
           | jfengel wrote:
           | That implies that air resistance is the overwhelming
           | contributor at high speeds. Is that the case?
        
             | kalenx wrote:
             | Considering air resistance is proportional to the cube of
             | the speed, it would be highly surprising to not be the
             | case.
        
               | cameldrv wrote:
               | It goes with the cube in terms of power, but with the
               | square in terms of energy/distance, which is usually what
               | you'd care about.
        
               | pengaru wrote:
               | s/cube/square/
        
             | Saris wrote:
             | Yes it is.
        
             | gpm wrote:
             | It's the majority, but overwhelming or not surprisingly
             | appears to depend on car model, at least per some
             | calculations someone on reddit ran [1].
             | 
             | I'd add though that rolling resistance tends to be higher,
             | on average, in winter too. When there's often a bit of snow
             | on the roads... Less so on high speed highways admittedly.
             | 
             | [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l2cq6b/com
             | ment/...
        
             | baq wrote:
             | Define 'high speeds'. There's a reason race cars look like
             | they do, to the point of having serious problems driving at
             | speeds just a bit below highway speed limit.
        
             | aucisson_masque wrote:
             | Oh yes, by so much.
             | 
             | Even at 30kmph it's already the majority of the resistance
             | and it scales exponentially with speed so you can imagine
             | how much it matters.
        
           | PunchyHamster wrote:
           | I'd imagine also less rolling resistance from both rubber
           | hardening and just roads being more slippery
           | 
           | But TBF same factors affect ICE cars
        
         | Joel_Mckay wrote:
         | >almost too good to be true
         | 
         | Since the Lithium battery prices dropped, there are many Sodium
         | battery companies simply abandoning the research or shuttering.
         | Not a good sign when smart people jump ship.
         | 
         | The Na cells also have lower energy-density, and currently
         | fewer viable charge cycles. One can still buy evaluation
         | samples, but it takes time to figure out if the technology will
         | make economic sense.
         | 
         | Best regards =3
        
         | PunchyHamster wrote:
         | Chemistry-wise it checks out, it was long touted advantage of
         | sodium, just that they probably ignored rest of the problems in
         | winter
        
         | bryanlarsen wrote:
         | I don't imagine the difference is very significant on long
         | drives. If the car is cold soaked at -30, it uses about 10kW
         | for the first 3km. Then everything is warmed up, and the ~25%
         | difference is increased consumption, not decreased battery
         | capacity.
         | 
         | As long as you have a heat pump harvesting the waste heat to
         | keep the battery up to temp.
         | 
         | But might be significant on short drives, 10kW for the first 3
         | km is massive.
        
           | rayiner wrote:
           | Yeah, this heat up effect is massive for around-town use. We
           | have had below freezing weather for two weeks, which is very
           | unusual here in Annapolis. That's had a huge impact on my
           | wife's use case, which involves a bunch of 5-10 mile trips to
           | drop the kids off at school, go on a grocery run, pick the
           | kids up, take the kids to math tutoring, etc. She ran out of
           | charge the other day during drop-off b/c the "37 miles left"
           | we had the night before was actually a lot less than that
           | accounting for warming the battery up the next day.
        
         | maayank wrote:
         | Why would that be a game changer? Genuinely curious.
        
       | instagib wrote:
       | "As always, we'll have to wait for independent testing for real-
       | world results."
       | 
       | interested in hot desert weather performance which often gets
       | lost in the averages.
        
         | cogman10 wrote:
         | Generally just not an issue. The biggest problem with deserts
         | is battery degradation and not so much range problems.
        
       | ezfe wrote:
       | I don't understand what these headlines are really about, given
       | that 75% of the range loss in my EV is from CABIN climate
       | control.
        
         | rootusrootus wrote:
         | That seems really out of proportion with the experience of
         | others, you may want to get it checked out. Do you have an
         | older model with resistive heat and no seat heaters?
        
         | ebiederm wrote:
         | My EV is absolutely terrible range wise at cold weather. It is
         | EPA rated at 220miles of range. I only see that when the
         | temperature is at or above 80F.
         | 
         | Most of the winter it tells me I can only do between 100 and
         | 120 miles. It is definitely half the EPA range with climate
         | controls disabled at 0F. (Ask me how I know).
         | 
         | I love driving it in the winter. I don't have a pressing need
         | to go long distances, so that is not a current concern. Not
         | having to stand outside in the bitter cold to fuel up in
         | absolutely awesome.
         | 
         | There are EVs on the market that do much, much better than mine
         | in cool weather and I now know what to look for.
         | 
         | To really penetrate the midwest it will take a car that can
         | realistically do a road trip to Florida from say Duluth, MN or
         | Michigan's UP in the winter.
         | 
         | Because not only do folks in the midwest drive long distances
         | without a second thought, they sometimes do it in the cold of
         | winter so they can get a break from the snow.
         | 
         | So yes still getting 90% of the range at -40C does sound
         | attractive.
        
         | sagarm wrote:
         | Does your vehicle have a heat pump?
        
       | anthonyIPH wrote:
       | Do any US automakers have anything in the pipes using Sodium-Ion
       | batteries? A quick search turned up info on a plant mass
       | producing the batteries in Holland, MI but no mention of when
       | they would be available. As someone in the market for an EV
       | within the next year or 2, and also currently enduring a month
       | long stretch of temps in the single digits and below, cold
       | weather performance has suddenly become a huge consideration.
        
         | loeg wrote:
         | Cold weather performance with heat pumps and lithium batteries
         | is fine. Don't worry about it. I wouldn't try to hold my breath
         | until a US automaker produces a sodium battery EV.
        
           | throwaway894345 wrote:
           | It's only "fine" if you live in the southern US where
           | freezing conditions are rare and/or never drive anywhere near
           | your winter range and you have a garage charger or some other
           | easy access to a charge station. Anything outside of those
           | conditions and winter range issues are painful.
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | And yet, some of the biggest proponents of EVs live in
             | frigid areas of Canada and the US. As it turns out, range
             | loss is not really a huge deal for a lot of people, but
             | being able to get in your car and drive without worrying
             | about whether it will start at all is nice. No plugging in
             | a block heater, no worry about fuel gelling, no warm up
             | time. And you can pre-condition the interior so it is warm
             | when you get in. With a modern EV you could lose 50% range
             | and still have plenty for your daily commute. Even a fairly
             | long commute.
        
               | gambiting wrote:
               | Norway regularly sees -30C in winter and EVs account for
               | like 99% of sales there, it made the news that in January
               | only 7 ICE cars were sold in the entire country.
        
               | TheCraiggers wrote:
               | It's also a different country with a different culture,
               | etc. Norwegians drive roughly 50% less than people in the
               | US. There's probably a bunch of contributing factors, but
               | the point is that reduced range is less of a problem if
               | you drive less.
               | 
               | I'll be the first to say we need less range anxiety, and
               | Norway is awesome. But we need to be careful comparing
               | the US to Norway here.
        
             | wat10000 wrote:
             | Having a garage charger and never driving more than your
             | winter range on any given day is a pretty common situation.
        
             | cmrdporcupine wrote:
             | Nah dude, I live in Canada, we're having a record cold
             | winter here, and it's really not bad. My car (Polestar 2)
             | is one of the least efficient, has no heat pump in my year,
             | and only has a ~225km effective range in winter (~300 in
             | summer) but .. I have zero range anxiety, there's no pain,
             | it's not annoying. The number of times one is driving that
             | far in a single trip is miniscule, but there's DC fast
             | chargers all along the highways that take the edge off, and
             | there are cars with far larger range anyways.
        
             | mperham wrote:
             | Yes, most people don't drive 200 mi/day. It's really ok.
        
         | jillesvangurp wrote:
         | LFP battery production in the US only recently reached larger
         | scale; so I expect it will be a while before they get around to
         | sodium ion. With all the tariffs, they'd have to license
         | technology and build local factories to get started. That will
         | probably be a few years at least. Or the tariffs might become
         | more reasonable at some point and they could import battery
         | cells a bit sooner than that. But probably not until the end of
         | this decade.
        
         | cmrdporcupine wrote:
         | If you remove Tesla and Rivian from the equation, US automakers
         | are actively curtailing EV production period.
         | 
         | The US administration has basically told them to do so.
         | 
         | So don't expect any innovation on this front from the middle of
         | the North American continent. It's being actively sabotaged.
        
           | mschuster91 wrote:
           | > The US administration has basically told them to do so.
           | 
           | Any US automaker relying on Trump staying in office is
           | playing with fire. Yes, you may see reduced or zero _press
           | releases_ and budgets for EV research being  "reallocated" on
           | paper so the toddler in chief doesn't get a public tantrum -
           | but assuming there will be free and fair elections this year,
           | it is highly, highly likely that Congress will be solid blue
           | and reinstate a lot of what Trump has cut down, only this
           | time as an actual law that is far harder to cancel than
           | executive orders.
           | 
           | And everyone _not_ hedging for this possibility will wreck
           | their company 's future.
        
             | threemux wrote:
             | There is no realistic path to a veto-proof majority for
             | Democrats in the midterm elections. If there was, Trump
             | would be impeached and removed before EVs were addressed.
             | 
             | Don't expect any movement on EV legislation unless and
             | until Democrats take back the White House in 2028
        
           | stinkbeetle wrote:
           | What did the administration say to them?
        
             | cmrdporcupine wrote:
             | Axed EV subsidization, openly called EVs -- and climate
             | change -- a scam, and then made noises about cutting
             | emissions standards, and aggressively pursued fossil fuel
             | expansion?
             | 
             | That and threw tariffs on the auto makers parts and imports
             | such that their businesses are under threat?
             | 
             | GM just axed the Bolt again. The only domestic affordable
             | EV. Stellantis killed all of theirs, from what I hear. And
             | Ford has pulled back as well.
        
         | seltzered_ wrote:
         | Likely No. Undecided with Matt Ferrell recently did a video on
         | how sodium ion batterys startup in the US (not necessarily for
         | EVs, but other power applications) have had challenges largely
         | due to the falling price of lithium making sodium batteries
         | less competitive on price the past couple years:
         | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nrTCgZmUFCY
         | 
         | OTOH, there are seemingly more lithium iron phosphate (LFP)
         | battery ev options now - rivian now uses LFP, Ford mustang
         | mach-e has had a LFP variant since fall 2023 (and should have
         | other models using LFP in 2027), I think the 2026 chevy bolt
         | uses LFP, etc.
        
       | loeg wrote:
       | Nothing in the article really substantiates the headline
       | (currently "The First Sodium-Ion Battery EV IS a Winter Range
       | Monster").
       | 
       | The EV described in the article has a standardized range of 250
       | miles. This isn't a range monster in any condition. There is some
       | gesturing that Sodium batteries don't require as much active
       | heating in cold conditions. But nothing is quantified.
       | 
       | As usual with sci-tech broadly and batteries specifically: it's
       | exciting that sodium batteries are coming to market; we can be
       | optimistic that maybe in the future they will provide lots of
       | range, or be less expensive, or maybe less flammable than today's
       | lithium batteries. But the marketing hype is running miles ahead
       | of reality.
        
         | throwaway894345 wrote:
         | > But the marketing hype is running miles ahead of reality.
         | 
         | The marketing hype is the true range monster
        
         | cess11 wrote:
         | It makes this claim:
         | 
         | "The Long-Range Version sets a new record for light commercial
         | vehicles with a single-pack capacity of 253 kWh, achieving a
         | maximum range of 800km."
         | 
         | That would be some 720 km at -40 C if the numbers are correct.
         | I'm not well versed in this area and not sure if these
         | batteries are comparable to those in personal vehicles, but the
         | ones I've heard owners talk about have a reach at about half
         | that if it's cold at all.
        
           | baq wrote:
           | Even 620 would be absolutely not an issue, this is the
           | difference I get from my diesel car basically
        
         | rootusrootus wrote:
         | > less flammable than today's lithium batteries
         | 
         | If we put aside the politics, what are the actual statistics
         | behind lithium battery fires today? And don't LFP's have
         | negligible fire risk?
         | 
         | I feel like my gasser F250 had a higher risk of spontaneously
         | combusting.
        
           | fatbird wrote:
           | The problem isn't spontaneous combustion, it's having an
           | accident where the battery is damaged, causing runaway
           | combustion.
           | 
           | No one burned to death inside a Tesla while driving normally.
           | It's always following a crash.
        
             | PunchyHamster wrote:
             | I'd imagine if tesla stared to burn they wouldn't "drive
             | normally"...
        
             | gambiting wrote:
             | Unlike in traditional vehicles, most EVs have such a robust
             | firewall between the battery and the passenger compartments
             | you literally have 1+ minute to get out, compared to often
             | seconds in a traditional vehicle.
             | 
             | And I've been following Polish firefighters reports about
             | EV fires and they are very interesting - basically saying
             | that in all recent cases of EV fires they were contained so
             | quickly even the interior was largely undamaged - something
             | that practically never happens with regular cars. Some of
             | these have been in underground garages too, with difficulty
             | of access - but nowadays they just know how to approach an
             | EV fire and containment isn't a problem.
        
         | idontwantthis wrote:
         | > Unlike LFP or nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) packs, it
         | reportedly avoids severe winter range loss, retaining more than
         | 90% of its range at -40 degrees C (-40 degrees F). Power
         | delivery is also said to remain stable at temperatures as low
         | as -50 degrees C (-58 degrees F).
         | 
         | That is exactly the substance of the headline.
        
       | Anduia wrote:
       | Less bloated site:
       | 
       | https://carnewschina.com/2026/01/22/catl-unveils-worlds-firs...
        
       | smiley1437 wrote:
       | Out the gate, sodium ion advantages are so significant that
       | unless there is some surprise show-stopper it will likely become
       | the dominant energy storage medium.
       | 
       | Crustal abundance up to 1000x that of lithium - pretty much every
       | nation has effectively unlimited supply, it's no longer a barrier
       | or a geographically limited resource like lithium.
       | 
       | No significant damage going down to 0V, can even be stored at 0V
       | - much safer than lithium which gets excitable once out of its
       | prefered voltage range.
       | 
       | Cold weather performance down to -30C - northern latitude users
       | don't have as much range anxiety in the winter.
       | 
       | Basically, the only problem I see is that companies that have
       | made significant long-term investments in lithium could take a
       | big hit. Countries that banked on their lithium reserves as a key
       | future resource for will have to adjust their strategy.
       | 
       | Lithium batteries will likely still have a place in the high
       | performance realm but but for the majority of run-of-the-mill
       | applications - everything from customer electronics to EVs to
       | offgrid storage - it's hard to see how sodium-ion wouldn't
       | quickly replace it.
        
         | gpm wrote:
         | Energy density matters a lot for many applications, including
         | customer electroncs and EVs. Sodium ion is at a fundamental
         | disadvantage (sodium is heavier than lithium).
         | 
         | I don't doubt that sodium ion has a place... but whether it
         | takes over as the dominant battery type for portable
         | applications strikes me as very dependent on the future of
         | lithium extraction. It seems like a place that has a lot of
         | room to grow more efficient and thus more competitive on cost.
        
         | djoldman wrote:
         | It seems the remaining disadvantage is energy density. If they
         | can figure that out, it should win?
        
           | adrian_b wrote:
           | It is impossible for sodium-ion batteries to reach the same
           | energy density as the best lithium-ion batteries.
           | 
           | So lithium-ion batteries will never be replaced in
           | smartphones or laptops by sodium-ion batteries.
           | 
           | But there are plenty of applications where the energy density
           | of sodium-ion batteries is sufficient. Eventually sodium-ion
           | batteries will be much cheaper and this is why they will
           | replace lithium-ion batteries in all cheap cars and for most
           | stationary energy storage (except when lower auto-discharge
           | is desired).
        
         | Flere-Imsaho wrote:
         | No mention of degradation as a result of recharge cycles. So
         | many of my electronic devices have had to be disposed of
         | because the battery would no longer hold a charge. This is also
         | a big factor in EVs and their loss of value over time.
        
           | smiley1437 wrote:
           | CATL claims 10,000 cycles for the Naxtra:
           | 
           | https://battery-news.de/en/2026/01/26/catl-presents-
           | sodium-i...
        
           | 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
           | Can/will sodium ion go spicy pillow?
        
       | dyauspitr wrote:
       | This with 500-600 miles range means the end of ICE. 250 is still
       | too little since that will realistically be closer to 150-160 if
       | you're consistently driving 74-80 mph.
        
         | decimalenough wrote:
         | Unfortunately sodium ion is less dense than lithium ion, so
         | range is lower too.
         | 
         | Since it's also cheaper, it's likely that Na-ion will be
         | adopted by cheaper city runabout type EVs, while premium long
         | range EVs will continue using Li-ion.
        
           | cameldrv wrote:
           | I saw a CATL presentation where they were hyping a hybrid
           | lithium-sodium pack. Their version of sodium ion could
           | charge/discharge faster than LFP, and handle lower
           | temperatures. The hybrid then gives you a nice combination of
           | features. You get better density/range from LFP, but if you
           | have to start in the cold, the sodium-ion can get you going,
           | and then with active cooling you can heat the LFP using the
           | waste heat from the sodium ion for the rest of the trip.
           | Since the sodium ion charges faster, you can charge part of
           | the overall pack really fast, so you can make a quick trip to
           | the charger and add ~50%. If you live in a cold climate area
           | it seems like a very good combination.
        
       | nharada wrote:
       | This is awesome and I'm really happy to see this progress.
       | Landing a new chemistry in a production car THIS YEAR is some
       | crazy velocity, especially compared to where other Na-Ion
       | batteries are in the development cycle elsewhere. Is anyone else
       | even close to having a car on the road with their cells?
       | 
       | The reason this is so exciting for me personally is for
       | stationary energy. Because the raw materials are so abundant and
       | have good cold weather performance, both grid and home level
       | energy storage costs should come down significantly as this is
       | commercialized further.
        
       | clawlrbot wrote:
       | Incrementally better. But not a monster.
        
       | dtgriscom wrote:
       | Question: if a LiIon battery can't deliver as much energy when
       | cold, where does the lost energy go? Is it just unavailable, and
       | becomes available again when warmed up? Is discharge less
       | efficient, so the energy is wasted? Or does charging stop early
       | when cold, so there's less to be discharged in the first place?
        
         | coryrc wrote:
         | > Is discharge less efficient, so the energy is wasted?
         | 
         | Yes. It's mostly wasted as heat inside the battery. I think
         | there's also a temperature relationship to open-circuit
         | voltage? But the predominate effect is from elevated internal
         | resistance.
        
           | cogman10 wrote:
           | I believe you are correct. Temp causes the voltage to drop
           | faster. It does raise as the battery heats up.
        
         | stavros wrote:
         | This is an educated guess, but I think it becomes less
         | efficient, so it heats up, and then performs better as it
         | heats. I assume this to be the case because I charge my RC
         | plane LiPos the same way every time, and they take the same
         | amount of energy, but flying in the winter gives much shorter
         | flight times. Since the battery is warm after a flight, even in
         | the cold, I don't think the energy is still there the battery
         | is still discharged when I take it home), so it must just be
         | much less efficient and wasting a lot of energy as heat.
         | 
         | I assume it's just that its internal resistance rises when it's
         | cold, but I might be wrong.
        
         | goalieca wrote:
         | Batteries can freeze solid. It takes energy to keep them warm
         | with an heater. Then there's cabin heating which is usually
         | warmed by heat from combustion in a gas engine.
        
       | bilsbie wrote:
       | Dumb question but I've always wondered if we could make a giant
       | "hand warmer" type chemistry around the battery and use that to
       | get it going in cold environments.
        
         | 0_____0 wrote:
         | One way I've seen of doing this is to include a PTC heater.
         | It's a heating element that you feed DC. It has a positive
         | coefficient of resistivity vs. temperature, so it'll
         | asymptotically approach a temperature defined by the structure
         | of the material. No PID controller required, it's just a sheet
         | of material you include in the battery structure.
         | 
         | Granted, you have a minor bootstrapping issue wherein you need
         | the battery to be warm before you use battery power, but at
         | very low % of the battery's power capacity I suspect it's less
         | of an issue.
        
       | cyanydeez wrote:
       | Two things EVs need to be everywhere for me. Range and STOP
       | MAKING UGLY SUVs.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | Remember those Donut/Verge solid state batteries, which were
       | supposed to ship in Q1 2026? That just slipped to the end of 2026
       | or 2027.[1] Supposedly they're delayed by needing "certification"
       | for their motorcycle.
       | 
       | (The motorcycle is real, and has been out for years. This is just
       | a battery upgrade.)
       | 
       | [1] https://insideevs.com/news/786388/verge-motorcycles-donut-
       | la...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-08 23:00 UTC)