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

321–330 of 396 posts

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

#321

Post by cmrdporcupine »

tedd4u wrote: post #309
karmajunkie wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument against hybrids that's always resonated with me is that you get the maintenance costs of a gasoline engine with the upfront costs of a battery. I've owned a Leaf and found it relatively trouble-free but never a hybrid. Am I just buying into FUD there?

It's easy to like plug-in hybrids (I do), but it does feel transitional. As you pointed out, you have the potential for higher maintenance costs, _plus_ during electric operation, you carry the weight of ICE, fuel, fancy transmission, etc. which makes electric operation less efficient. And vice versa, during ICE operation you have a big battery and motor to carry around, reducing fossil fuel efficiency. I guess you c…

In the Voltec drivetrain when the ICE is running the whole battery system is complimentary to it, not a detriment. It is precisely what allows it to be efficient. It uses an Atkinson cycle ICE for higher efficiency, and then uses the electric motor to augment locomotion, and the battery as a "buffer" with regen, etc. I rarely use the ICE mode, most of my driving is within range, but when I do, it's very performant and efficient, and hard to tell you're switched to combustion if it wasn't for the noise. It still drives mostly like an EV.

And honestly, the ICE itself isn't very heavy -- nothing compared to a battery -- and as I said elsewhere, maintenance hasn't been an issue in the 5 years I've had mine. Oil change every 2 years (or more if you use the ICE a lot... I don't), that's it.

The heaviness argument is especially baffling to me. Carrying around a 60kWh battery pack that you only use for road trips is way heavier and less efficient. Most drivers are not using their whole battery pack in daily use, so it's just stupid expensive dead weight, much heavier than an ICE you use occasionally.

I want an ICE-less future as much as the next person, but it kinda pisses me off how EV purists who actually knew very little about the Voltec drivetrain basically got that product killed off. Emissions on roads would be drastically reduced if vehicles were switched to that model (which is not a PHEV like the other junk hybrids, but more of a range-assisted EV) without the very high cost and weight of large battery packs. Very much a "best is the enemy of the good" situation.

I'd like about 10kWh more in my Volt, and 6kW charging. Other than that, perfect car.

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

#322

Post by serf »

mulmen wrote: post #266
pkulak wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, maybe 100x was an exaggeration, but not by much! Take a look at this transmission from 2007. They haven't gotten simpler. Lot's of cars are sporting 10-speeds these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission#/media/...

The number of speeds is a function of the number of planetary gearsets. They’re just connected in series. More speeds isn’t more complex, it’s only a larger part count. By the time the transmission is computer controlled and has two speeds it’s as complex as it’s going to be. Modern ICE are also extremely complex. Turbo systems, sensors, air management, heat management, the list goes on. So yeah, a modern transmissio…

>By the time the transmission is computer controlled and has two speeds it’s as complex as it’s going to be.

I don't disagree with your posts greater point, but I disagree with this.

There is an endless amount of variable complexity in the engineering behind friction materials, actuation styles, the control systems within the computer control, the material selections.. the list goes on.

I mean entire branches of metallurgy were more or less founded in the pursuit of finding stronger alloys for gearbox work. entire branches of metrology were developed for the sake of gearbox failure analysis -- there is a lot of complexity.

It's stupid to get into a pissing contest between engines and transmissions, they're both astoundingly complex.

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

#323

Post by serf »

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.

>Why do people need 200 mile range for an EV? For example, my daily mileage averages about 5 miles.

The average one-way commute for someone in the United States is ~28 miles. Most people would love your commute.

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

#324

Post by TheDudeMan »

karmajunkie wrote: post #248
brnt wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hybrids get a bad rep. It makes for such a difference: knowing that you don't need to worry about that 1%.

The argument against hybrids that's always resonated with me is that you get the maintenance costs of a gasoline engine with the upfront costs of a battery. I've owned a Leaf and found it relatively trouble-free but never a hybrid. Am I just buying into FUD there?

True, but they win despite that.

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

#325

Post by Qwertious »

refulgentis wrote: post #236
jdewerd wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you spend 200 words arguing for the premise of my second point? Usually one spends time arguing against your opponent but ok, sure, I'm glad we both prefer refining and manufacturing in friendly countries. > [the commencement of mass production of Na batteries in the USA] refutes the core premise of your statement How so? This plant is one tiny step on a very, very long road. I'm glad to see it happen, but ex…

Could have done without the first paragraph. :) I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia (supply locked up by China) or Chile (read anything re: politics last 5 years) as my sources. the general thrust that youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading instead of illuminating is correct. (requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??) and specifically…

>Australia (supply locked up by China)

What's that based on? Australia exporting most of it to China doesn't prove anything except that China is a major trading partner for Australia. If the problem is securing lithium for the US, then 1) the US could buy more (Lithium is sold for cash, not given away), or 2) it could set up more mines in Nevada (which has a ton of lithium, and would have lower transport costs to boot).

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

#326

Post by bufferoverflow »

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

Trolleybus is a technology from over 100 year ago.

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

#327

Post by Qwertious »

rockskon wrote: post #173
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #33

We’re undergoing a Cambrian explosion of battery chemistries at the moment. Other startups, such as From Energy is scaling up production of Iron Air batteries in West Virginia, which will be an order of magnitude cheaper than lithium ion and will provide grid scale power [1]. North Harbour Clean Energy Promised to build a manufacturing facility in Australia to build Vanadium Flow batteries, which have very high charg…

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?

Energy density for cars doesn't matter as long as it's above a certain minimum that lets the cars travel ~500km (~300 miles).

Once they reach that number, car companies mostly care about cost - higher energy density reduces the weight of the car, which lowers the material costs of the rest of the car, but a big reduction on the cost of the battery does effectively the same thing. Ideally they want a dirt-cheap battery that's also high capacity, but then so does everyone.

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

#328

Post by cryptonector »

NegativeK wrote: post #275
cryptonector wrote: post #112

Sodium is quite plentiful, and it doesn't need mining. Sodium batteries, if competitive, would be quite a revolution.

I was under the impression that sodium is produced from salt, which is mined.

It's also just extracted from the sea. And where salt is mined, the environmental impact is minimal.

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

#329

Post by hilbert42 »

GuB-42 wrote: post #177
mschuster91 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The problem is water resistance. Your old Nokia (except the indestructible 3310) was dead if you managed to let it fall into water, most phones up until the end of the headphone jack had the same problem - and secure-boot st…

I don't know where this myth came from but there are many smartphones that are water resistant and with a user replaceable battery. One of the first in the mainstream was the Motorola Defy, there is also the Samsung Galaxy S5. Neither were particularly bulky. Interestingly the Galaxy S6, which followed the S5 was neither waterproof nor has a removable battery. I currently have one of the very few remaining smartphone…

"Sealing a battery compartment in a way that doesn't hinder replacement is a solved problem,"

Right, splash resistance through to full hermetic sealing is well developed engineering, so it's a non issue. That's not to say one has to go to extremes for a phone. For example, there's no reason why a phone cannot be constructed in a modular fashion where the key electronics is essentially sealed against the ingress of moisture and its peripheral connections, jack, mic, speakers, battery connectors are part of the case.

For maintenance, simply snap out the electronics and put it in a new case. Similarly, jacks are easily made waterproof with connections going through hermetic seals. Diaphragms on mics and speakers can actually be part of the seal and so on. Compromises can be made to suit the circumstances, and none of this is complicated manufacturing.

Making phones more robust against the environment makes sense, it would not only extend their life but dovetail neatly into Right-to-Repair laws—laws which I reckon will eventually become inevitable.

Phone manufacturers will be dragged kicking and screaming but they've already had it too good for too long at customers' expense.

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

#330

Post by naruhodo »

GrantMoyer wrote: post #116
alberth wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also significantly heavier by weight.

Do you mean heavier per energy capacity, or am I misinterpreting "heavier by weight"?

Yeah.

Unless he means that a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.

Post reply on HN