[HN Gopher] A lithium-ion breakthrough that could boost range an...
___________________________________________________________________
A lithium-ion breakthrough that could boost range and lower costs
Author : thelastgallon
Score : 46 points
Date : 2026-02-23 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techradar.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techradar.com)
| sedatk wrote:
| I don't want lithium-ion alternatives for better range. Quite the
| opposite, I'm actually okay having slightly less range if it
| means my car won't spontaneously combust. This one apparently
| improves the safety of lithium-ion batteries too, so it's great,
| but I hate when headlines focus on one thing that matters the
| least.
| hgomersall wrote:
| Do you worry about spontaneous combustion of ICE cars? They are
| far more likely to burst into flames than EVs.
| apparent wrote:
| Is this true when adjusting for vehicle age? The average age
| of an EV is quite a bit lower than the average age of an ICE
| vehicle, and I assume there is at least some correlation
| between a vehicle's age and how likely it is to explode
| (based on degradation, type of use, type of owner, etc.).
| sedatk wrote:
| > They are far more likely to burst into flames than EVs.
|
| There's a substantial increased risk only with ICE cars that
| are at least 10 years old _and_ poorly maintained. Li-ion EVs
| carry that risk from day one.
| NickM wrote:
| Neither EVs nor ICE cars spontaneously combust unless
| there's a design flaw. Even when this happens it tends to
| be very rare, but the Chevy Bolt fires for example were
| fixed with a recall. Similarly a Ford recall last year
| fixed a problem where fuel injectors could leak and cause
| an engine fire.
|
| EVs and ICE cars can both catch on fire in a bad enough
| accident, but this is true regardless of the age of the
| vehicle, and tends to be more sudden and violent with
| gasoline explosions vs battery fires.
| giobox wrote:
| > Quite the opposite, I'm actually okay having slightly less
| range if it means my car won't spontaneously combust.
|
| Modern LFP LiIon (LiFePO4) batteries are pretty damn safe now,
| and is also the dominant chemistry in new EV batteries and
| energy storage systems. The fire risk is nothing like what it
| was, arguably your wish has already been granted.
|
| The Chinese market is mandating this year that EV batteries
| prevent fire or explosion for a minimum of 2hrs after a cell
| enters thermal runaway, and LFP is the main driver to achieve
| it.
| sedatk wrote:
| True, but they are not as common as they should be.
| apparent wrote:
| I get that this can make it possible for greater range for the
| same price, but what about the same range for lower price? If it
| weren't for the batteries, EVs would be much cheaper than ICE
| vehicles. It stands to reason that if we can cut the battery cost
| while keeping range the same, we could greatly cut the cost of
| the EV in total.
|
| Maybe car companies don't want to do this because they'd rather
| price discriminate and get every last penny. It would be too bad
| though, since some people would happily upgrade cars more
| frequently if they weren't so outrageously expensive ($50k avg
| price for new vehicle transactions, IIRC).
| orev wrote:
| Car companies already alter fuel tank sizes to get a specific
| range, so it would stand to reason that they would do the same
| for batteries. It's cheaper for them to use fewer materials.
| apparent wrote:
| Hope so! I have seen a few vehicles with higher capacity
| trims, so the real question is whether they'd shave $5k off
| the price of a vehicle and give it a quite-limited range (150
| mile). Some people would be totally fine with that,
| especially as a second/third car.
|
| But it would somewhat complicate manufacturing and make it a
| little more confusing for consumers to know what they're
| getting. Perhaps this corner of the market will continue to
| be served by sellers of years-old EVs, which can have lousy
| range but work well otherwise.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Car manufacturers already offer different sizes of battery
| packs, but that doesn't affect the price that much.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| "If it weren't for the batteries, EVs would be much cheaper
| than ICE vehicles."
|
| And yet I've watched as $/kWh for battery component prices is
| 1/3rd of what it was 8 years ago (when I got my Chevy Volt) but
| EV prices have not appreciably gone down.
| apparent wrote:
| Yeah I think this is a combination of greater range and the
| ceasing of EV subsidization.
|
| It would be nice if there were some options that had much
| less range than is now possible, at a substantial discount.
| MBCook wrote:
| What does it mean it doesn't have an anode? How is the other pole
| connected to the battery?
| 7777777phil wrote:
| Worth noting this is an anode-free design. Removing the anode
| matters more for commercialization than the energy density
| headline because it cuts material costs and simplifies
| manufacturing.
|
| 80% capacity retention is promising buuuuut.. "near-real-world
| conditions" is doing heavy lifting in that sentence.
| mmooss wrote:
| > it cuts material costs and simplifies manufacturing
|
| How much does it reduce material and manufacturing costs? I
| don't expect an exact number, but more like 5%? 50%?
| Tade0 wrote:
| Definitely double digit percentage. Ballpark of 20-30%.
|
| The anode is typically made out of high purity graphite, so
| 99,9%+. Its production process is energy intensive and thus
| expensive.
| meling wrote:
| Jikes! How many ads can they squeeze in on news website... really
| distracting (I'm not using ad blocker).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-23 23:01 UTC)