This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
From the article, it seems more like a capacitor than an actual battery. While it would still have its uses, such as smoothing out surges and dips in power demand, you won't see anything powered by these any tume soon.
Plus I'm curious as to the energy density. High energy density capacitors can already be made via other cheap materials.
There has been a "new breakthrough in battery technology that will change everything!" every 3 months for every one of the 30+ years of my life
Don't forget all the hiv and cancer cures...
And everything is very different from when NiCd was the dominant technology. You're welcome.
But the real changes have been constant incremental progress rather than breakthroughs. If all the hype was to be believed, we would have been off lithium batteries at last a decade ago.
Each breakthrough had elements that were messy and complicated and once you break through the hype and look at what the breakthrough actually was, you can see they're in hearing aids, and single use applications and many of them (even ones not originating in lithium batteries) are now in lithium batteries.
Hence why they went from barely more than lead acid in energy density with abysmal lifetimes to at around 90Wh/kg and <200 cycles to 500Wh/kg for pilot-scale (still larger than the total scale of lithium in the early 2000s) commercial batteries that do 1000s of cycles, charge ten times as fast and cost a tenth as much using no precious or rare earth metals and a 20th of the lithium. 2015-2020's breakthroughs are gearing up to give us 700Wh/kg expensive batteries and 160Wh/kg dirt cheap sodium batteries.
The breakthroughs happened and are in mass production, just because the charge carrier is the same (with good reason) doesn't make the other parts the same. Stop focusing on a single word as if that defines the entire thing.
That saie, this 'breakthrough" is pure hype. The concept is interesting, but the suggested application of residential energy storage is worse than a sodium ion battery by every metric.
We're focusing on this single word because it's used to drive hype. We're constantly told we're getting a major breakthrough that changes EVERYTHING to keep us clicking on the news.
Maybe we wish that instead of acting like we're about to get a 300% increase in energy storage density every time something new is discovered, scientists and media were honest and told it like it is - it's going to be just yet another improvement to our existing lithium batteries. Which is great, but not worth a minute of your attention every single time it happens.
Then...stop giving it by making inane, tired, cliched comments. And stop blaming shitty journalism and mandatory PR department fake hype for grant money on the scientists. Downvote and move on.
I wasn't going to comment until you crawled out of the woodworks to defend said hype.
It took some digging, but here's a link to the actual paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2304318120
That is fucking huge if true.
If it sounds too good to be true...
I've give up on these headlines, every month there seems to be a new battery tech that is to revolutionize the word, but then you never hear of it ever again.
Completely changing the construction method of the foundation of a whole house, making it out of 90% cement/10% electrolyte (releasing 200 extra tonnes of CO2) rather than 20% cement/80% gravel and increasing costs by tens of thousands for the same effect as a 70kg $2.5k rrp battery (which will be a 50kg $500 battery in two years)?
Doesn't seem huge other than in the literal size sense.
As soon as some new energy storage invention article mentions electric cars I know it's bullshit. Electric cars are not green and they are not a solution to anything. Where an electric car is best to use, a car shouldn't be used at all.
Electric cars are also great outside of cities, where public transit never will be, because it's inefficient to run even a daily bus line for 7 people.