edit I am an idiot, who uploaded the image link as the URL. The original source should now be accessible

RMIT engineers say they’ve tripled the energy density of cheap, rechargeable, recyclable proton flow batteries, which can now challenge commercially available lithium-ion batteries for capacity with a specific energy density of 245 Wh/kg.

  • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Battery tech exists in a variety of stages. We have been using Li-ion for ages but there are two technologies coming out this year and next which are very much real (from CATL the worlds leader in battery sales) one of which you can buy today.

    You can buy Sodium Ion batteries already, search for it on aliexpress and you’ll see the cells are for sale and BYD is already selling cars with it in. Its similar power in weight and density as Li-ion but it doesn’t catch on fire and its a lot more environmentally friendly. Its good a chance of being the main battery used for home/grid storage and cars and other big battery uses, it also lasts a lot of cycles something like 6000-8000 so it will work for decades and its cheap at $50/KWH (li-ion is more like $130).

    The other type is a Li-ion advancement into solid state that is due next year and it doubles the power density. That is probably going to end up in laptops and phones and some high end cars with massive range or smaller/lighter batteries where the increased cost for power density is worth it. Not yet at commercial volumes it is well past the theoretical stage however and very much something that can be manufactured already.

    All this battery tech in the lab might very well be in the mix in the future but we don’t need them to pan out with Sodium Ion filling that space and quite cheaply due to the abundance of salt. I think for grid storage reflux batteries might see a resurgence for their versatility but it remains to be seen if they become price competitive. Li-ion as we use today is very soon to be replaced thankfully.

    • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Found a good video article on Na-Ion battery technology; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQE56ksVBB4

      So according to that article Na-Ion energy density is comparable to the LFP type of Li-Ion battery. That’s about 20% lower than the more common types you see in consumer products and EVs. LFP has much longer cycle life and lower fire hazard so it’s used where weight and space are less of a concern. However it still has the same cost and materials issues.

      Na-Ion is well poised to replace LFP. The advantage is lower cost and more environmentally friendly materials. Unfortunately Na-Ion is not inline to replace the higher energy density types. As it becomes more widely adopted it may improve to the point where it can so there’s hope for it.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      it also lasts a lot of cycles something like 6000-8000 so it will work for decades

      Not good enough for the next 10 years.

      Energy density and charging speed must, and will, improve by much more.

      • Oneser@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most applications assume max 2 charge/discharge cycles per day, don’t they?

        And where space is not an issue, a cheaper option could be favourable? Im afraid I don’t understand both your points

        • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Im afraid I don’t understand both your points

          Of course you can’t LOL, if cycles per day and cheap is all that you can think, because I simply haven’t talked about these two topics.

      • DokPsy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The good news is that funding is finally being given for it so advancement will happen

      • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        25th most common on Earth and most of it is in the ocean, which we don’t have a good extraction method for yet.

        Edit: how did you come up with Lithium being the 3rd most common in the universe? Oxygen is 3rd and Lithium is 44th most abundant universally.

    • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to let you in on a little secret.

      They don’t disappear because of some conspiracy.

      They disappear because they don’t do what they claim to. Or they only perform that way in a small scale on a lab bench. Or they are too expensive. Or vastly many other reasons.

      I think this xkcd statement is equivalent enough: when someone says that they cured cancer in a petri dish, keep in mind that so does a hand gun.

    • cashsky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some shady holding company is going to buy the patent for it and sit on it forever while the rest of humanity continues to pillage underdeveloped nations for their lithium.

      • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry, but there is simply no way that anyone can have so little greed as to prefer to exercise their sociopathy rather than become the richest person on earth (where they can harm people much more effectively).

        The reason these things don’t materialize is because they weren’t never there in the first place.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s happened multiple times before. Mostly when a big company is heavily invested in an alternative technology. They don’t want to completely retool, since it’s expensive, but they want to limit others from developing it, and so become competitors (that eat into profit margins).

          The simplest solution is to buy up critical patents and either sit on the, or slow boat them.

          Oil and car companies did this with electric/alternative car research for a while. Kodak also did it with digital cameras, since they competed with film cameras. It doesn’t last forever, but it can give decades of extra profit, before the competition gets over the speed bump.

          • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah. None of that is true.

            There was plenty of electric car R&D (and it was never overly restricted by patents). Battery technology and electronics were just not got enough until recently, and there wasn’t as much of a financial incentive to go electric.

            Kodak is a standard example of a company’s failure to migrate from its legacy business. It very much did not stifle digital imaging.