869
Samsung’s 20-year-life EV battery runs 600 miles on 9-minute charge
(interestingengineering.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
869 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59582 readers
2645 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Now we're getting there!
now tell me why it isn't sustainable
Gas-holes will tell you that the rare metals leak poison into dirt.
As if gasoline isnt already doing that.
They aren't. They're doing it right and into the air you all will breath and bake in for the rest of your, now short, life, suckers.
Because carrying a 2-ton metal box around you for every single trip you want to do is the least efficient possible way of doing so. Walk places, ride bikes, take trains, minimize car trips and promote carsharing for the occasional trips where cars are actually necessary.
I literally can’t walk to anything, I live in the woods.
56% of humans live in cities, and this is increasing over time. It's cool that you're the exception who lives kilometers away from the nearest store (poor planning in your village though), but the reality is that by proper city-planning and good public transit investment, most people wouldn't even need to have cars at all.
I don’t live in a city, I live outside of one- they don’t block off the land around here and say you can’t live on it. I’m not interested in living in a city- I have a couple of acres, gardens, old oak trees towering all around giving me shade, I’m near a lake where I can go boating, I have space for my camper and garden tools. I’ve lived in apartments and townhouses, and when you live right next to work, then yeah, walking across the street to your job is great, but if you want something more than 1000sqft for your family and dog- you find yourself outside a city.
On the flip though, I can work from home so I drive a lot less than many, and our groceries are delivered so there are efficiencies gained by a single vehicle delivering to multiple homes instead of each making a trip.
And furthermore, I have enough space to put in a large solar array which I’m currently looking into. If I ever get an electric car, I’ll be able to charge completely off grid with green power. All of that is tougher crammed in a high density urban environment where you’re at the mercy of infrastructure out of your control.
Please tell us how environmentally friendly bringing infrastructure like internet, roads, electricity, water or garbage disposal to low-population density areas is, and how resource-efficient single family houses are. Go off living your happiest life, mate, just don't preach about the sustainability of it when your eco-footprint is twice that of a city dweller.
As advice: for solar panels to charge an EV, you're gonna need a fuckton of them. An EV battery is easily 50kWh, which means a 10kW solar installation producing full energy for 5 hours (assuming perfect efficiency on conversion). So be ready to buy a lot of panels.
Well I’m on well water, and I live near Amazon data centers so power was already close by at large scale. I have a septic system, so there’s no sewage lines. Internet is fiber, also already here because of Amazon and it runs on common telco lines that have been there 100 years and uses almost no power for transmission. As for solar, whole home solar arrays are common in my area, I could probably fit 30-50 panels on the sun side.
I’m not arguing that it’s more sustainable, just that endless population growth crammed into mega cities isn’t a great solution either- I think smaller communities with some measure of independence is probably more sustainable than city sized archologies with people crammed in coffins- that’s no way to live. With fewer people the slices of pie can be bigger. Cities use an unbelievable amount of concrete for infrastructure which is a huge pollutant and a finite resource due to the limited supply of special sand required.
There’s no easy solution- I’m just saying for many, it’s not as simple as just taking a bike. I feel like reducing heavy industry and global population and making Chinese trash products illegal would have a far greater impact on global sustainability, as those things use orders of magnitude more energy and resources than every country dweller’s cars combined. And don't get me started on energy hungry crypto and AI farms- they use more power than the bottom 10 countries combined.
Industry has done a great PR campaign making people feel guilty and personally responsible while generating billions of tons of plastic bottles, bags, and packages which are 90% not recyclable regardless of the blue bins. Small changes at industrial scale would have far greater impact- like switching back to glass bottles or waste fiber bags. Not to say we shouldn’t each do our part, but we as individuals carry an unfair share of the blame for problems largely created by unregulated profit driven enterprises.
Solid.
Well I’m on well water, and I live near Amazon data centers so power was already close by at large scale. I have a septic system, so there’s no sewage lines. Internet is fiber, also already here because of Amazon and it runs on common telco lines that have been there 100 years and uses almost no power for transmission. As for solar, whole home solar arrays are common in my area, I could probably fit 30-50 panels on the sun side.
I’m not arguing that it’s more sustainable, just that endless population growth crammed into mega cities isn’t a great solution either- I think smaller communities with some measure of independence is probably more sustainable than city sized archologies with people crammed in coffins- that’s no way to live. With fewer people the slices of pie can be bigger. Cities use an unbelievable amount of concrete for infrastructure which is a huge pollutant and a finite resource due to the limited supply of special sand required.
There’s no easy solution- I’m just saying for many, it’s not as simple as just taking a bike. I feel like reducing heavy industry and global population and making Chinese trash products illegal would have a far greater impact on global sustainability, as those things use orders of magnitude more energy and resources than every country dweller’s cars combined. And don't get me started on energy hungry crypto and AI farms- they use more power than the bottom 10 countries combined.
Industry has done a great PR campaign making people feel guilty and personally responsible while generating billions of tons of plastic bottles, bags, and packages which are 90% not recyclable regardless of the blue bins. Small changes at industrial scale would have far greater impact- like switching back to glass bottles or waste fiber bags. Not to say we shouldn’t each do our part, but we as individuals carry an unfair share of the blame for problems largely created by unregulated profit driven enterprises.
you're the exception.