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

Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 331 posts

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#261

Post by mastermage »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #198
rogerrogerr wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you mostly aren’t charging to 80%, usually it’s closer to 40-60%.

heh, ok, that’s strange. So when you say it’s got a 350 mile range, but then make the point you only need to charge to 40% that you would be fine with a single vehicle that had a 140mile range? I swear buying an EV in 2026 breaks brains. The push back has been so bad because the mfgs pushed the single car lie… but the people that jumped in now need to defend their $60,000 purchases. I get it, but please don’t think y…

I took a trip from Germany to Italy over the alps with my EV with only 60 kWh of Battery. In reality the largest amount of delay I got due to other uncontrollable factors like a massive 2 hours traffic jam. in contrast to that I had like 1 20 minutes charging break and one 5 minutes to buy my esim that i forgot for switzerland. The 20 minute break i was gonna take anyways to take a piss and eat some food.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#262

Post by gambiting »

lightedman wrote: post #221
gambiting wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does someone with such short temper get to work in the aerospace industry? You know we are just a bunch of random strangers on the internet and telling someone to "sit down" just comes across as funny more than authoritative. And I don't think telling someone "I know exactly what the fuck I'm speaking of" has ever had the desired effect on the internet, it just screams insecure - if you're really an expert make i…

"How does someone with such short temper get to work in the aerospace industry?" My temper is very even. I simply do not tolerate bullshit from nobodies who are speaking garbage. And I get to work in aerospace because it seems that out of the millions of people that tried to get my job I'm the only one with the relevant mixed-domain expertise to realize what a company wants to do and get it done. I have hardware in o…

Right, so were you like this before you started working there, or was putting hardware into orbit what made you behave this way in internet comments? I mean I imagine it must be a huge ego boost, but I don't know, I've done some really cool stuff too but I don't go around telling people to sit down when they try to talk about my domain.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#263

Post by GuB-42 »

himata4113 wrote: post #234
GuB-42 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the stuff that powers mars rovers (RTG) is that gives off constant power. If your RTG gives off 100W, you will always get 100W, no more, no less, until it progressively decays on the scale of decades. You can't even turn it off. The energy density is great, but the power density is really bad. For most applications, you still want a battery in addition to the RTG. I don't know how easy it is to make…

The hard part of enrichment is getting to around 20%, after that it actually becomes easier. They're slow-decay isotopes yes, but I am fairly sure you can build a multi-stage device to create a superheated plasma to release all that energy in a fraction of a second since they are capable of chain reactions and it is largely dictated by heat. Last time I looked into this was 5 years ago so my memory is a bit fuzzy, ta…

It is actually the opposite, RTGs use plutonium-238, which is much more radioactive than the plutonium-239 used in bombs. And it is a problem because it will blow up before you can assemble enough of it to make a big nuclear explosion. In addition, it is not as fissile as plutonium-239.

I don't know about production, it is a hypothetical and I just assumed you had a bunch of plutonium-238 available, but as I understand it, rather than being an enrichment problem as with uranium-235/238, it is just not made using the same process as plutonium-239 to begin with.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#264

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

I find the fact that the military here is setup orthogonal to the civilian sector fascinating- for the military- a unified energy carrier - that can be everything, battery, fuel, explosives is the golden grail. Bonuspoints if you can squeeze that liquid through a fuel cell.

So, Methanol + doseable hydrogenperoxide or something similar it is. If it can drive your drone, power its onboard compute and fire a gun or convert into explosives at the end of the journey, thats pure victory.

Bonuspoints again, if you can standardize your whole setup into machine assembleable legobricks, creating changeable drones on demand, that can iterate in hours through, where normal military industrial complexes take months, years, generations. Every drone, every rocket just a stack of coke cans, foil-wrapped, going for a walk, a fly.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#265

Post by thebruce87m »

Razengan wrote: post #180
moffkalast wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aliens somewhere, presumably.

Isn't their tech powered by portable black holes?

AA battery size is black holes. Can’t quite get the technology to scale for AAA so you still have to swap the TV remote.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#267

Post by inigyou »

moffkalast wrote: post #183
Razengan wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't their tech powered by portable black holes?

The regulatory approval for those is just too expensive in practice. I mean you blow up one star due to cost cutting and nobody trusts the tech ever again...

But that was a Joviet power plant with a severe design flaw. They had a foot of up-quark matter at the bottom of their control rods, which increased the reaction rate for a brief moment after the emergency ABSCOND button was pressed. Plus, they were running the reactor at dangerously low graviton flux levels, leading to a pion buildup, during a shift change. Everyone knows those Joviets can't do anything right.

Our Amearthican designs would never have such flaws. They are completely safe, and several are operating around the galaxy already, producing hundreds of exawatts. Unlike the stellar panels recommended by those ill-advised "environmentalists" which can't work in nebula weather, or helioshock plasma turbines that rely on the stellar wind, our plants provide a sustainable base load in all conditions.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#268

Post by j16sdiz »

inigyou wrote: post #266

YouTuber "NightHawkInLight" just made a flow battery from common materials. Why would I want a solid state battery when I could have a battery whose capacity expands just by duct taping plastic water barrels to it?

What's the energy density for that? Something that works doesn't mean something is desirable

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#269

Post by floatrock »

j16sdiz wrote: post #268
inigyou wrote: post #266

YouTuber "NightHawkInLight" just made a flow battery from common materials. Why would I want a solid state battery when I could have a battery whose capacity expands just by duct taping plastic water barrels to it?

What's the energy density for that? Something that works doesn't mean something is desirable

Is energy density required for all applications? Something that's not desirable for say a car doesn't mean something isn't good enough for say non-mobile applications.

Re: Why is everyone trying to build a solid-state battery?

#270

Post by homeonthemtn »

floatrock wrote: post #269
j16sdiz wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the energy density for that? Something that works doesn't mean something is desirable

Is energy density required for all applications? Something that's not desirable for say a car doesn't mean something isn't good enough for say non-mobile applications.

Well, yes actually. If you're talking any kind of batteries above Duracell level, then it's important to understand how much power can be stored in a given "unit"
Post reply on HN