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

291–300 of 396 posts

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

#291

Post by pfdietz »

rich_sasha wrote: post #4
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.

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

I believe sodium here is always in the oxidized +1 state, like the lithium in Li-ion batteries. It's not present as a metal. The things being oxidized/reduced are transition metals in one or more electrodes.

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

#292

Post by pfdietz »

rgbrenner wrote: post #34
tmaly wrote: post #12

I remember seeing a post on HN a few years back where a professor at MIT figured out how to make a battery out of more abundant materials. Does anyone recall this post or have a link?

Ambri? They've been making very slow progress.

The difficulty of operating devices for prolonged periods at very high temperature is not well appreciated.

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

#293

Post by pfdietz »

specialist wrote: post #21

Sodium-ion compliments Li-ion in the marketplace. Each battery variation is better suited for various niches. eg Sodium is a better fit for stationary storage. Though CATL and others are using sodium for down market vehicles too, which should free up Li-ion capacity for other use cases. To reach net-zero 2050, we'll need an installed base of 2 terawatts of battery storage. Annual production is ~30 gigawatts. (IIRC.)…

Global battery making capacity is now around 1 TWh/year.

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

#294

Post by darknavi »

WalterBright wrote: post #209
_yb2s wrote: post #67

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…

Why do people need 200 mile range for an EV? For example, my daily mileage averages about 5 miles. As an errand-runner, a 30 mile EV would be very practical. The huge benefit of this is a smaller and cheaper battery, and the biggie - much less weight. Much less weight leads to much less tire/brake wear and tire/brake dust pollution. I'd still have a second gas car for the trips.

We road trip with our Tesla ~5 times a year and I never want to own an ICE car again.

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

#295

Post by myself248 »

shrx wrote: post #228
ForOldHack wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The energy density of sodium ion batteries is low.It is only 100-150Wh/kg, while the energy density of lithium energy is 120-180Wh/kg. This means that for batteries of the same size, sodium-ion batteries can store much less energy than lithium-ion batteries.Jan 2, 2024" https://www.dnkpower.com/will-sodium-batteries-replace-lithi...

That's 20% less, not "much less".

Furthermore, we're decades into lithium optimization, and sodium is yet quite young. Being within 20% so early in the game is remarkable!

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

#296

Post by rockskon »

eliaspro wrote: post #198
rockskon wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lesser energy density is a pretty big caveat that can readily make or break the commercial viability of this technology. How big of a difference compared to lithium ion is the energy density?

Density doesn't really matter for stationary grid storage, where even slightly lower battery costs can easily outmatch higher space requirements.

Given the stated use cases of the post I responded to was electric vehicles and mobile devices, my response was framed in terms of that. Consumer devices - especially phones - famously prioritize battery life.

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

#297

Post by chefkd »

some_furry wrote: post #283
topspin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good analysis, until you got here: > While this is a baseless comment, let's look at it anyway: It's not baseless. This is a golden boy startup, blessed with save the Earth kudos and highly subsidized. The DOE spun this outfit up in 2020 with $19M. Michigan and Whitmer have fast tracked the one, modest, token plant, delivered the tax breaks and signed the contracts for a sodium battery power facility in the state. VC…

> At that point you have a choice: fail, or build out where labor is cheap, workers are disposable and regulators are just low-cost party agents, and use your position as US company to readily import your foreign made products. Why are any of us okay with humans being "disposable" anywhere on Earth?

I think is just the way of the world. Not saying it's right but it's just reality. I come from a place where people kill and do horrible things for 10 dollars a day to build the same battery with maybe a 10 percent drop in quality. I doubt anyone in the US would be willing to work for that comparative advantage or something at play. How would you ensure that doesn't happen? Making everyone equal via something like Marshall Plan type thing is considered Marxist rhetoric I doubt it would be viable right? Plus there's the issue of competing nations

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

#298

Post by eternityforest »

jtriangle wrote: post #223
jdewerd wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but do you have a gas station at home so it's "always full"? That's really nice ;)

You certainly can, provided you have a truck, and a DOT certified fuel trailer, and a transfer pump. That system also allows you to participate in oil futures as an end user, not to mention it lets you keep your generator up and running for a very long time. Downside is, modern e10 gasoline tends to adsorb water from the air over time, so fuel isn't stable long term. Most guys doing this are running diesel cars/gense…

Is running a generator for long periods cost effective? If someone lived where the grid wasn't reliable, and could make the initial investment for all this fuel storage stuff, why not do solar?

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

#299

Post by shkkmo »

rockskon wrote: post #296
eliaspro wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Density doesn't really matter for stationary grid storage, where even slightly lower battery costs can easily outmatch higher space requirements.

Given the stated use cases of the post I responded to was electric vehicles and mobile devices, my response was framed in terms of that. Consumer devices - especially phones - famously prioritize battery life.

They also prioritize price, especially at the low end. If sodium batteries are significantly cheaper, it will be used to produce low cost devices.

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

#300

Post by elihu »

dieortin wrote: post #282
elihu wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast charge speeds make electrified highways a more viable option. There are some projects in Europe using overhead lines (for trucks) or power rails embedded in slots in the road surface (usable by cars or trucks) so that vehicles can recharge while moving. Building a network of electrified highways is expensive though. One way to reduce initial costs is not to electrify the whole length but to have, say, one mile o…

Charging private vehicles while they move sounds very complicated

This is one way to do it:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/12/worlds-f...

Overhead cables are simpler and cheaper, but not easily compatible with cars (which would need a comically tall pantograph to connect to the cables).

(Induction is a third option, but it's not really viable except in certain special cases because it's way more expensive, can't deliver as much power, and tends to be less energy efficient.)

Electrifying highways may sound expensive or complicated, but consider what the alternatives are. We could stick with fossil fuels. The U.S. burns about 4 million barrels of gasoline and about 4 million barrels of diesel a day, most of which is used to push cars and trucks around. That's not simple or cheap, we're just accustomed to the cost.

Another option is we switch to EVs and rely on big batteries for range. That kind of works, but battery manufacturing scale isn't there. It's also kind of wasteful to have a substantial portion of the vehicle weight being batteries. It means cars and trucks are heavier than they need to be, and they can haul less cargo.

If we could get to the point where, say, someone could drive coast-to-coast without ever having to stop to charge with only 30 or 40 kwh battery, that would be huge. It would reduce EV costs dramatically, it would reduce average vehicle weight, and you might even get better performance.

(This wouldn't completely eliminate the need for some long-range vehicles for areas not served by electrified highways, but for most uses it should be fine.)

Post reply on HN