'252 km (157 miles) range' to save others the same skimming I did
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
775 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59080 readers
4225 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
Not bad for that battery's first outing
Perfect for my needs. But I doubt it will ever be for sale here in the U.S.
The key is that with the right use case, it frees up lithium to be used where only it is suitable.
(for my needs I'd be fine with sodium...)
I can see that. My point is that the only electric car that has that range in the U.S. is the Leaf, which goes 168 miles on the smaller battery. I don't need an electric car that goes that many miles between charges. I'd be fine with 90. I'd probably be fine with less than 90. We have a second car if we ever want to leave town. I'd ditch my hybrid and get a cheaper electric car that didn't have a huge range, but it isn't even on offer.
Dude get a used Leaf or Bolt. There is a $4k tax credit or direct price reduction for used now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For sure! I think we're going to have to move away from a one-size fits all car design. For general city use, I use a Chevy Bolt, but for longer (infrequent) runs, I'm still stuck with ICE (I'd use a hybrid if I had one). In Canada, the range really does go down in the winter. (and Canada has not taken charging infrastructure very seriously - mandatory for adoption)
Anyway you look at it, these are very, very positive developments.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I've found people vastly overstated how much range they need. 99% of usage is in the city between home and somewhere else. 250km is perfect if the price is right.
For daily use, sure - but it completely excludes itself as an option for road trips in the US and parts of Canada. There's a stretch of interstate road near me with nearly a 100 mile gap between service stations.
I know that this isn't the purpose of this battery, but it's a valid reason why a lot of people might be hesitant to buy one. Many people can't afford multiple vehicles for different purposes. You have the car you drive to work with, and if you happen to go on a trip you just use the same thing.
Maybe 99% of use occurs within constraints that this battery can handle, but if you can only afford one vehicle, then this is still a pretty suboptimal option. That being said... it could still be cheap enough to not matter. I didn't see any mention of price in that article.
If 99% is covered by this then cover your last 1% by renting a vehicle has that ever occurred to you ?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Maybe we have to settle for suboptimal solutions from time to time to save the planet?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Id like to add that there are different versions of the car, with the long range version being 302km range, and the battery mass to energy ratio is actually average compared to other batteries.
load more comments
(14 replies)
This is awesome news. Not because of the car, but because it builds the supply lines for an alternative battery chemistry.
People have been using lithium-ion batteries for home and grid storage, which is nuts if you compare it to other battery types. Lithium is expensive and polluting and only makes sense if you're limited by weight & space. Cheaper batteries, even if they're bigger/heavier, will do wonders to the economics of sustainable electricity production.
People have been using lithium-ion batteries for home and grid storage, which is nuts if you compare it to other battery types
Compared to other battery chemistry types using lithium makes tons of sense.
Lead acid type batteries like sealed and AGM are cheap but not power dense and do not offer the same discharge ability that lithium offers without damaging the battery (AGM fixes this but it's still an issue). Some lead acid batteries require continuous maintenance and vent toxic gasses which may be an issue depending on your encloser.
Nickel cadmium batteries solve a lot of issues that lead acid batteries are plagued with however they suffer from moisture intrusion issues causing self discharge. Nickel cadmium also suffers from memory effect which may completely ruin pour battery depending on your use. The elephant in the room with nickel cadmium is that it's banned in some countries including the European union due to how toxic cadmium is.
Now with lithium, it's a very energy dense battery which means you need less batteries to meet a capacity or you can fit more capacity into an encloser. There isn't any electrolyte or water maintenance you need to worry about. You can discharge and recharge as you wish with minimal damage. Really the only downsides is that they do not like charging in the cold, are just as toxic as cadmium, and are much much much more expensive.
I find it interesting that, on a post about sodium ion batteries, your comment completely excludes them
The original comment was about lithium and their popularity for backup power. Sodium ion batteries are so new that you can't purchase them yet (blueitte supposedly released the NA300 but I can't find any in stock and it's no longer on their site).
It wouldn't be fair to compare a chemistry you cannot purchase and which it's strengths and weaknesses haven't been tested outside of controlled laboratory testing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I agree that older commercialized battery types aren't so interesting, but my point was about all the battery types that haven't had enough R&D yet to be commercially mass-produced.
Power grids don't care much about density - they can build batteries where land is cheap, and for fire control they need to artificially space out higher-density batteries anyway. There are heaps of known chemistries that might be cheaper per unit stored (molten salt batteries, flow batteries, and solid state batteries based on cheaper metals), but many only make sense for energy grid applications because they're too big/heavy for anything portable.
I'm saying it's nuts that lithium ion is being used for cases where energy density isn't important. It's a bit like using bottled water on a farm because you don't want to pay to get the nearby river water tested. It's great that sodium ion could bring new economics to grid energy storage, but weird that the only reason it got developed in the first place was for a completely different industry.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Lithium makes more sense when weight is an issue, for example when you have to carry the battery around. Sodium batteries could be good for grid storage if they can be implemented as scale cheaply enough, especially using common materials.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Curious how it'll perform in real world conditions. Sodium batteries are supposed to have much better charging times and don't degrade the way lithium batteries do, both of which would be huge. Fingers crossed they live up to expectations.
(Also obligatory "expand and improve public transit damnit!")
As some used to "gotchas" and things aren't free, I'm wondering what kind of shortcomings[1] these batteries have that others do not.
[1] for example acid batteries can push a lot of power, but they are heavy and contain lead and well... acid. The nickel cadmium doesn't contain lead and acid, but has memory so you should follow discharge them before charging again. They are lighter, but still not light. Lithium ion are light, don't have memory, but can explode, also lose life if they are kept fully discharged or charged for long periods of time. They also slowly discharge when not in use, mainly due to protective circuit needing electricity to run.
Their only downside is having a little less energy density than lithium ion ones. You need a larger battery for the same capacity basically. Everything else is a positive - they are even non-flammable and the materials to make them are abundant and easy to obtain.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(23 replies)
Hold up, they solved the energy sink issue with the salt batteries? That's wicked. There were physicists arguing with each other that the power you put in couldn't be gotten back out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We've only got a stated range out of this (252km/157mi) but there are a lot of factors where this could do well. Sodium batteries should be cheaper, so it'd be great if that translated to the final sale price. Depending on charge times and where you live, this could be a perfectly practical vehicle. If it doesn't degrade like lithium batteries, then that'd be even better. Might make for a great secondary vehicle (or everyday driver, depending).
I'm expecting to see dual battery EVs in the not too distant future. A Sodium battery for the primary that gets the most charges and discharges which can be easy and cheaper to replace. Beside that a Lithium battery which would only be drawn from after the Sodium battery was exhausted. This way if you're doing shallow discharges for your "around town" driving then charging at night, and deep discharges for longer road trips where the energy density of Lithium shines.
Lithium batteries dont like being stored fully charged they will degrade over time.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(20 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Question to anyone who might know more: would sodium based batteries be better than lithium ones for the environment, in terms of recycling or disposing of it?
In case they are indeed better, would they be better because it's better to use less lithium in general (so if you use more sodium based ones, you use less lithium) or would they be also better because their own disposal is "nicer" (as in less toxic) for the environment?
Well, Sodium is the 6th most abundant element on Earth, so there's a lot more of it and the extraction process is probably far more environmentally friendly.
Since Sodium batteries are so new I don't think we have data on the toxicity, disposal or recycling avenues yet.
They're actually old tech. They just could never match lithium.
They'll shine as standing storage more so than mobile applications. Home storage will benefit greatly from their improvements
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I don't find the source anymore, but i saw a lifetime analysis about sodium ion batteries. Overall they are slighly worse than lithium ion due to higher energy input required during fabrication, despite better mineral availability.
The most common Na-ion batteries use Prussian Blue.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
My doctor says I can't buy it. Is there a low sodium version?
Any new battery technology news needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They are highly likely over-hyped and the actually realized products will have more problems than the current established tech initially.
Any new battery technology news needs to be taken with grain of salt.
Well yeah, it's sodium.
too easy...
Normally you're right. It seems like every day there is a new revolutionary battery tech with no real estimate when it'll ever be in use. But in this case, according to the article, deliveries will start next month which means they're already in production.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Unfortunately the page is behind the yahoo consent tracker and my DNS resolver by precaution refused to connect.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›