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

Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 396 posts

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#61

Post by fallingsquirrel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44
MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a fatter phone. It actually might be easier for me to hold. I've never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them.

> never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them For people who wear slimmer-fitting clothing, this matters. Also, it’s more about the weight: you want a phone light enough that holding it up isn’t tedious.

This isn't playing out in reality though.

10 years ago we already had the tech for smaller phones (and yes the battery life was fine, 1-2 days typical). Just check out any flagship from the 2010-2015 era, e.g. https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9500_galaxy_s4-5125.php

If people actually care about slim, light phones... why has almost every company stopped making them?

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#62

Post by AustinDev »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #26
nightowl_games wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully we can continue to lower the power requirements of our every day items and the lower capacity of these batteries will become less of an issue.

Lowering the power we use, is the only realistic goal. I wear an Apple Watch. On my wrist, is a small, Lithium-ion battery, that contains a great deal of power. That power is trickled out, over time. If it were to all release at once, I'd no longer have a left hand. Packing all that energy into smaller and smaller form factors, increases the risk; no matter what tech we use. Energy is energy. When it comes out quickl…

One little point I want to clarify is that if your Apple Watch battery did indeed short and none of the protections against shorts worked, you'd likely just have a burn on your wrist. 309mAH isn't all that much energy assuming a full charge.

I once bridged a ~2,500mAH 18650 battery that was in my bag when my keys created a circuit between the anode and the cathode. The result was a small fire inside my bag that was quickly stamped out. Now, if I'm carrying batteries capable of dumping a lot of current quickly, I use cases.

What excites me most about this new battery tech is home and commercial backup energy storage that's much 'greener' and cheaper than lithium. There is a lot of space in rural and grid settings, so the density of Li-Ion isn't really needed.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#63

Post by crazygringo »

alberth wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that: > Natron says its batteries charge and discharge at rates 10 times faster than lithium-ion, a level of immediate charge/discharge capability that makes the batteries a prime contender for the ups and downs of backup power storage. Also helping in that use case is an estimated lifespan of 50,000 cycles. So you take up more space, but the storage system is better in every other way (agility, conflict min…

It’s also significantly heavier by weight.

Which again, is basically a non-issue for grid-scale storage.

These aren't for laptops or cars.

Though they seem to trying to increase energy density, so they can become for cars. But not there yet.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#64

Post by sanderjd »

alberth wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that: > Natron says its batteries charge and discharge at rates 10 times faster than lithium-ion, a level of immediate charge/discharge capability that makes the batteries a prime contender for the ups and downs of backup power storage. Also helping in that use case is an estimated lifespan of 50,000 cycles. So you take up more space, but the storage system is better in every other way (agility, conflict min…

It’s also significantly heavier by weight.

No big deal if you set it on the ground and never move it!

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#65

Post by hilbert42 »

GuB-42 wrote: post #25
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it isn't as high-capacity, a longer-lasting and safer battery over a thinner smartphone isn't a _bad_ trade-off, specially considering chips and screens get more efficient. This might have more market than stationary batteries.

But who wants a fat smartphone with lower battery life? Smartphones are where people want as much energy density as possible. Smartphones are also expensive devices with a relatively small battery, so it makes sense to add a few dollars for more energy density. Also most smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence, so much that countries are starting to legislate, they don't really want long last…

"…smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence,…"

E-waste laws at some point will become inevitable, so planned obsolescence will be under scrutiny. Devices will have to have a minimum design life etc. Moreover, user-replaceable batteries—whether long life or high capacity—are likely to be mandatory as a result of such legislation.

My old Nokia used to have a replaceable battery which also served as the back of the phone, a quick release button meant the battery could be replaced within seconds.

Manufacturers can't use the argument that it can't be done because it was common practice with Nokia 20 years ago. Nowadays more modern design practices will make that even easier to implement.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#66

Post by strangattractor »

demondemidi wrote: post #11
rich_sasha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they safer? Sodium is also very highly reactive. Otherwise agreed, I'm very happy with form factor of 5-10 year old phones.

NaCl is pretty safe. ;)

My cardiologist doesn't think so :(

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#67

Post by _yb2s »

I had an early EV with only 80 miles of range, and found it extremely useful for most in town travel and commuting. Now that EVs are pushing ~400 miles range at about 300Wh/kg, assuming sodium is about half that (from what I've seen), you'd still get a respectable 100-200 miles in a car. For me, and I imagine a lot of people, that would be totally acceptable if it means lower cost, and batteries that effectively last forever without replacement.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#68

Post by cesarb »

justinclift wrote: post #41
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The battery made by the company mentioned uses an aqueous electrolyte construction which is theoretically safer from what I read, but I don't know if it can be made small for a portable. The fact it supports more cycles and tolerates a broader temperature range than Lithium counts points towards safety too. Lithium isn't happy above like 30 Celsius, which a fast charging portable device can _easily_ reach.

> Lithium isn't happy above like 30 Celsius, which a fast charging portable device can _easily_ reach. Sounds pretty bad for people living in warmer climates then, as they tend to be above 30 celsius anyway. ;)

> Sounds pretty bad for people living in warmer climates then, as they tend to be above 30 celsius anyway. ;)

As a data point, the ambient temperature right now where I live is 33°C. I just walked home from a quick grocery trip a couple of blocks away. And that's not an atypical temperature (at least for the warmer months of the year; we're supposed to be in the colder months now, but the climate's been all wonky lately).

If my phone's battery didn't like ambient temperatures above 30°C, it would have failed long ago. There's no air conditioning in the street.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#69

Post by crazygringo »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #36
GuB-42 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who wants a fat smartphone with lower battery life? Smartphones are where people want as much energy density as possible. Smartphones are also expensive devices with a relatively small battery, so it makes sense to add a few dollars for more energy density. Also most smartphone manufacturers are very much into planned obsolescence, so much that countries are starting to legislate, they don't really want long last…

Personally, I wouldn't mind a fatter phone. It actually might be easier for me to hold. I've never seen the appeal of phones so thin I could shave with them.

The appeal is about being able to slide easily into pants pockets (esp. front pockets) without creating big uncomfortable tight bulges.

Not as much of an issue with loose men's chinos, but definitely an issue with standard slim men's jeans, as well as with a slimmer-cut chino.

And if you want to see if a fatter phone is easier to hold, that's what cases are for. You don't need them to make the phone fatter.

In reality, most thin phones aren't all that thin anyways once people put a protective case on them, as many (most?) people do.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#70

Post by bmicraft »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #38
hackernewds wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so cynical

I mean, look at what was done to lighting. There are some original Edison bulbs that still work, yet you'd be lucky to get a year out of a modern incandescent. Same thing happened to LED bulbs.

The tradeoff with conventional light bulbs is efficiency vs. lifetime. This is not the usual planned obsolescence it is made out to be, you are actually getting more efficient bulbs that way.
Post reply on HN