Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#21

Post by adrian_b »

rini17 wrote: post #2

If they plan large scale as soon as next year, then some physical specimens should be available already. Are they anywhere?

Sodium-ion batteries with lower energy/mass ratio, but with high endurance and low cost, which are suitable for stationary applications, like storage for solar energy, are already available commercially.

Googling finds on-line offers for 48-V, 2.5 to 10 kWh batteries at an energy/mass ratio of 89 Wh/kg (a similar battery with lithium-iron phosphate has 133 Wh/kg), i.e. a little less than half of what CATL is claimed to have achieved.

It remains to be seen whether the claims about CATL are true, but the difference between what is claimed and what is already available is not so large as to make the claims incredible.

For stationary applications, the sodium-ion batteries already seem a good choice, due to the much lower price than even the lithium-iron phosphate batteries, which have very similar specifications but seem to be 7 to 8 times more expensive.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#22

Post by tromp »

quonn wrote: post #18
tromp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that sodium ion is claimed to - charge twice as fast as lithium ion - have double the number of charge cycles - cost substantially less - be substantially safer - and more environmentally friendly I think it would be the clear preference for all but the highest performance vehicles. Note that Tesla is also trying to reduce cost in moving to 4680 cells [1]: > the main reason Tesla is using 4680 batteries at the…

Comparing to LFP the advantages are not that big. It might be cheaper and scale better. Charging speed is now mostly limited by public charger speed and good enough. I expect sodium batteries to have a big impact in cars that cost 25k or less.

Taking out the lithium seems a rather big advantage. Anyway, it's good to have two promising alternatives to Li-ion, both of which are clearly superior for home use, and likely for affordable, smaller range EVs as well.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#23

Post by Zigurd »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #4

Sodium ion is a better fit for houses and grid storage than vehicles or consumer electronics.

China is an immense market for lower-cost EVs. They also do not have as far to drive as most Americans. This battery tech could be less suitable for the US than China and still have an enormous market.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#24

Post by vinaypai »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

Paywalled, but CATL already make 1/3rd of all EV batteries, including some to Tesla. Tesla's main supplier, Panasonic only supplies 9% of global demand so the framing of this as a threat to Tesla is weird. The US willingly gave up any chance to lead on this tech (and several related areas) to China, to slightly prolong their hydrocarbon industry. An obviously bad decision for multiple reasons.

Right now any framing that somehow involves sticking it to Elon Musk guarantees clicks.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#25

Post by entropicgravity »

hunglee2 wrote: post #9

There is no way that CATL is going to escape the US policy of suppressing China's technological development. Batteries are going to follow SC's - very likely next in line - and Tesla's reliance on CATL batteries is the weak point upon which Musk's empire will fall. Destroying CATL will probably set back EV adoption by some years, replacement suppliers will surely be built if industrial policy continues to be applied

Chemistry will not be determinant regarding which battery technology will prevail. Cost will be primary and endurance will be next. Tesla's 4680 (yes, it's a can, not a chemistry) automated manufacturing technology will be hard to beat in both cost and endurance. And it's just at the beginning of the learning curve of the manufacturing tech. Competitors will have to be prepared to shell out plenty of cash to keep up. Hard not to notice that even Panasonic would not commit to 4680 manufacturing at scale until they could confirm that Tesla's dry anode tech was viable.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#27

Post by thechao »

Zigurd wrote: post #23
throwawaymaths wrote: post #4

Sodium ion is a better fit for houses and grid storage than vehicles or consumer electronics.

China is an immense market for lower-cost EVs. They also do not have as far to drive as most Americans. This battery tech could be less suitable for the US than China and still have an enormous market.

I suspect most Americans don't drive as far as Americans do. I've got a hella commute & it's only 21 miles, each way. Getting to my parents is 55 miles. My in-laws are 205 — but stop for lunch anyways.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#28

Post by Tade0 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #8
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

Paywalled, but CATL already make 1/3rd of all EV batteries, including some to Tesla. Tesla's main supplier, Panasonic only supplies 9% of global demand so the framing of this as a threat to Tesla is weird. The US willingly gave up any chance to lead on this tech (and several related areas) to China, to slightly prolong their hydrocarbon industry. An obviously bad decision for multiple reasons.

Another reason is relatively lax environmental laws for rare earth production and electronics manufacturing. Interestingly, to your point, fracking and other hydrocarbon production techniques, are at least as bad if not worse but seem to get a relatively free pass. That said the advent of a sodium ion technology that’s practical at scale opens the door for competition by decoupling rare earth production from battery…

The last chemistry to use rare earths at scale was NiMH, the "M"(metal) being Lanthanum - also used in catalysts in the oil industry.

Li-ion batteries generally don't contain rare earths.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#29

Post by adrian_b »

quonn wrote: post #18
tromp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that sodium ion is claimed to - charge twice as fast as lithium ion - have double the number of charge cycles - cost substantially less - be substantially safer - and more environmentally friendly I think it would be the clear preference for all but the highest performance vehicles. Note that Tesla is also trying to reduce cost in moving to 4680 cells [1]: > the main reason Tesla is using 4680 batteries at the…

Comparing to LFP the advantages are not that big. It might be cheaper and scale better. Charging speed is now mostly limited by public charger speed and good enough. I expect sodium batteries to have a big impact in cars that cost 25k or less.

The only significant advantage compared to LFP appears to be the price.

However the price advantage is more than enough. After a short googling, it appears that I could buy right now a battery large enough to supply the energy for one day for my house (5 kWh), either as sodium-ion for $650 or as lithium-iron phosphate for $5000 (with very similar specifications for endurance and size).

The former I could buy at any time, for the latter I would have to save money for some months to be able to afford it. That is a large enough advantage.

Re: CATL's Sodium-Ion Battery

#30

Post by fnordpiglet »

Tade0 wrote: post #28
fnordpiglet wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another reason is relatively lax environmental laws for rare earth production and electronics manufacturing. Interestingly, to your point, fracking and other hydrocarbon production techniques, are at least as bad if not worse but seem to get a relatively free pass. That said the advent of a sodium ion technology that’s practical at scale opens the door for competition by decoupling rare earth production from battery…

The last chemistry to use rare earths at scale was NiMH, the "M"(metal) being Lanthanum - also used in catalysts in the oil industry. Li-ion batteries generally don't contain rare earths.

My bad. I’m better at programming.
Post reply on HN