• MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    70 Wh/Kg is indeed very low density comparing with today’s li-ion 300 Wh/kg.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah but for many low-power applications, it’s a damn cool development. Like I have a bluetooth keyboard and a few controllers that could eaisly fit a battery 3x-4x the current size inside no problem, so there’s no need to waste lithium on that.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      At 1000 times the abundancy, it is already 233 times better for stationary applications than lithium ion, no?

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Still great for grid storage. Save the higher density stuff for cars, trucks, and space.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s pretty good for early production and I’m sure that will improve over time.

  • skeezix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So what’s the deal, are they better, stronger, faster? Or take a hit for the cost/environment?

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 months ago

      Potentially cheaper and uses more abundant materials than lithium ion, but not as energy dense, so not ready yet for automotive purposes. They have a much higher cycle life and faster charge/discharge rates, though, so good potential for applications that don’t need to move like data center power backups.

      • northendtrooper@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        My first goto would be a cellphone battery. Having a cellphone battery lasting months longer than what I had to deal with on my old phone. I welcome this.

        • carzian@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 months ago

          Its not as energy dense, overall battery life will be worse. The battery won’t degrade as fast overtime, so the battery will keep more total capacity over the years, as compared to a lithium ion battery that would have noticeably less battery after a few years of use.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      From my limited understanding of the technology, sodium is more common and easier to obtain than lithium, and is less damaging to the environment to mine.

      May not pack the same energy density though, but it’s a tech still in the works…

    • Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      At the current energy density, they’re more suitable for stationary storage. But we need a lot of that, so that’s a win. Sodium is cheap and abundant, so those cells should be a lot cheaper to produce.

      • Num10ck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        if we’re all driving around in a short bus theres plenty of room for this density of battery.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      There’s not enough known lithium deposits in the world to make the batteries needed to decarbonize transportation and provide the energy storage needed for a fully renewable grid. That is not true of sodium, which is cheap and abundant.