this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
497 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

59422 readers
2824 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17558715

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 81 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hell yeah

I can't wait to see this headline again but about a bigger battery somewhere else

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 4 months ago (23 children)

Nice. This seems to be the future that solves a lot of problems. Right now in Australia, we’re seriously entertaining building nuclear power plants for the first time ever, to provide base load power that renewables allegedly can’t. Large sodium batteries could help us avoid that.

[–] noevidenz@infosec.pub 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The LNP doesn't have a legitimate interest in transitioning to nuclear power or they would've begun over the last decade or so that they were in power.

Instead they've proposed - now that they're in opposition - a technology which is banned at the Federal level and individually at the state level, because they know that gives them years of lead time before they ever have to begin the project.

On top of that, all of the proposed sites are owned by companies who've already begun transitioning to renewable generation or renewable storage, and most of them are in states in which the state Premiers have publicly stated that they will not consider overturning their bans on nuclear power.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

All this talk about nuclear only does one thing, keeping fossil fuels relevant for longer.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 4 months ago

I tend to agree. The right time to build nuclear was like 30 years ago.

The same people who opposed it then are the same people saying it's the future now. If anybody agrees to build it, the you'll have 15-20 years of renewable energy being cancelled because the "nuclear is on the way".

[–] noevidenz@infosec.pub 7 points 4 months ago

Exactly. They've brought up nuclear because they're desperate to have some kind of energy policy, but one they know they'll never have to bring to fruition because that allows them to continue with coal and gas for as long as possible.

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (10 children)

It's not just base load, turbines also provide grid stability. All the quick fluctuations as people turn things on and off are hard to load balance with solar, wind, or battery. A big spinning turbine has a lot of inertia. That helps keep thr grid at a constant frequency. As solar gets bigger and bigger we might need big solar powdered flywheel generators just to stabilize the grid.

[–] carleeno@reddthat.com 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Inverters could also provide "virtual inertia" which help to stabilize the grid frequency. However most of today's inverters don't have it, or it's disabled.

This means we don't need solar powered flywheels, which are inherently inefficient, we just need software (edit: and batteries of course) more or less.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/7/654

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Partially. Inverters providing virtual inertia is good but has the problem of still being active and reactive. It helps and is cheaper and more efficient than flywheels.

Flywheels and turbines however provide a very sticky frequency. They help out a lot with stability and give inverters time to respond.

Think balancing a stick on your hand vs anchoring it in clay.

If we take enough turbines off line we are still probably going to need some mechanical power stabilization no matter how inefficient.

But yeah I think we are going to see a blend using as much electrical and as little mechanical as possible.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like a way to waste loads of money and keep people on fossil fuels.

Must be way cheaper to build more batteries and build out inertia. (Would still need backup power at this point though).

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 months ago

Reminds me of Elon's Hyperloop. Not intended to actually work, but instead be a distraction to deflate interest in public transportation.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 51 points 4 months ago (5 children)

The draw-back with sodium batteries needs to be known, because they won't replace lithium anytime soon.

The density is lower, which is a great problem in EVs.

Not trying to be negative, but for an EV, or anything handheld, you get more weight for less power. Which is essential in a car, that uses more power the heavier it is.

What sodium IS the best at, are use cases where weight and size doesn't matter. Like with battery farms.

In this case they are much better than lithium.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

While you're not wrong, sodium batteries coming on the market have 200 Wh/kg. This is comparable to where LFP batteries were a few years ago. That means the newer sodium batteries are about as good as what's in lots of EVs right now.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

The ceiling is going to be lower than with lithium. Sodium ions themselves weigh about 3 times more than lithium, for the same +1 charge. So it's not just that sodium is a certain number of years behind lithium. It's that it'll likely plateau at a point permanently behind where lithium will likely be.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But for static storage, only price/kw matters.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Price per kw and price per kwh stored. And price per kwh over the expected lifetime of the battery itself (longevity and reliability and safety and disposal will have to be factored into total cost of ownership).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sodium could easily replace lithium in EV applications if people would acknowledge that only 2% of trips are more than 50 miles. Though it's probably moreso the auto industry's fault that people have this assumption they need to prepare for a three hundred mile journey on a moments notice.

If manufacturers were putting out cars that had four figure price tags with double digit ranges, they would become the best selling vehicles within a decade and no one would care if it was sodium, lithium, or sawdust. Of course, there is less profit to be made from smaller vehicles and so the corporations won't bother.

[–] Addv4@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (9 children)

That's assuming you don't have issues charging at where you live, which is a pretty big if for a lot of people. A 300 Mi charge would mean if you can't charge daily, you would be able to go a couple of days without having to do so.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] GenosseFlosse@lemmy.nz 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

EV owner here. 50 miles is not practical, beacuse then I need another for the other 2% of trips that are longer than that. This also ignores detours or traffic jams, when google will try to reroute me over a longer, but faster route. Plus, the "50 miles" readout you get is always just an estimate and the real range depends on temperature, driving speed, start-stops and how much elevation you need to cover. Some 30km trips here cost me 50+ EV km because its all uphill in one direction. I usually add 30km to my trip as required charge, because when the battery reaches 25km the car starts to complain with a nervously blinking battery readout and a "Charge now!" message on the dashboard.

"But then you just charge during the trip!" - Well this only work if i go somewhere where i know where to find RELIABLE chargers. I am well aware that there are good apps that show me charging locations, but getting a charging spot I can actually use is a different story:

  • charging station can be used by someone else, or there is queue and each car will most likely charge for 30+ mins. Of course, sometimes some inconsiderate pricks will hog a spot untill their car is fully charged, even if it takes his frikkin tesla 2h
  • charging stations close for repairs, sometimes for weeks
  • some charging stations need an account or RFID-tag before you can use their (but not other) charging network
  • other charging stations require you to bring your own cable
  • some charging stations dont have the connector you need for your car
  • some stations on the map are bogus, for example that one at my local volvo dealership that only exists to charge the showroom and customer cars, but is not accessible to the public.

Not saying EVs are bad, but the charging infrastructure still needs some work to be reliable and accessible. Petrol stations always have some large, obnoxious signs on the side of the road that you cant miss; Charging stations are sometimes just a tiny grey box on a wall and a 5-space parking lot, or behind a building and you never notice it when driving by.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 months ago

Yeah I see these as the answer to the people who think solar energy is bad because the sun goes down.

[–] sour@feddit.de 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What other benefits do they have? Do they have less wear or are cheaper per Wh to produce?

Or at least, about to be when production ramps up further?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They are dirt cheap, don't have the fire safety issues as some lithium chemistries (not all lithium chemistries do that), and sodium is abundant.

[–] sour@feddit.de 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, sounds great for any non mobile storage then. Don't think anybody cares whether their 10kWh solar battery is twice the size and weight if it's half the price.

Thank you :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Article says operating temperature range. -20 to 60 C

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago

Lithium batteries are often -30 to 80C, but that's just saying what's possible to squeeze some kind of voltage out of them. Basic principle is that the colder it is, the harder it is for chemical reactions to happen, and thus this will affect all chemical batteries to some degree.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Put one of these in every neighborhood please.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

the power station can be charged and discharged more than 300 times a year. A single charge can store up to 100,000 kWh of electricity and release electricity during the peak period of the power grid. It can meet the daily power needs of around 12,000 households and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 13,000 tons annually.

Nice

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

I love how these look like Lego pieces snapped onto a green base.

Even if all that is painted cement or something it is also just really refreshing to see architecture, especially the sort of necessity eyesore that tech architecture/engineering requires, also being mindfully the environment it will exist in to some degree. Even if it is only visual.

[–] Cipher22@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't California have some insane battery too?

[–] Piemanding@sh.itjust.works 35 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Yes, but that is Lithium-ion. These batteries are Sodium-ion which are better for the environment and can potentially be made a lot cheaper.. It's still pretty new technology so it's not really in any consumer products yet.

[–] schizoidman@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 months ago (5 children)
[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 3 points 4 months ago

Yes, but you pretty much have to do a full battery test and pen test like the great Scott video because it is really a 60/40 of getting fake sodium ion batteries from Aliexpress 😅

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 months ago

That’s pretty neat.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

According to Datang Group, the power station can be charged and discharged more than 300 times a year.

Well, nice, but "more than 300 times a year" is definitely a weird goal to define or a weird metric to brag about, right?

I mean, what in it's desig could be so critical that they wouldn't just say 'once daily' or something.

Does it require maintenance days when no cells are operational?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sir_Fridge@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Hopefully we can soon get one as home batteries to extend the use of solar panels. Because I don't feel great about having a lithium battery that large in my house

load more comments
view more: next ›