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

Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#11

Post by wffurr »

poisonborz wrote: post #8

For how important it is to modern society, the somewhat stagnating state of battery technology in comparison is baffling. Obviously there is a lot of $ thrown on this problem (securing the constant flow of such hopeful articles in the since the 2000s) but per feeling most of the gains since the Nokia days comes from improving HW/SW efficiency.

Hardly stagnating. Improving rapidly, perhaps. Not an exponential curve, but steady linear growth in capacity.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/eternally-five-years...

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#12

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Dear battery technology claimant,

Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:

[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.

[ ] it will be too expensive for users.

[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.

[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.

[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.

[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.

[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.

[ ] its charge rate is too slow.

[ ] its materials are too toxic.

[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.

[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.

[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.

[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.

[ ] your claims are lies.

credit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26633630

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#13

Post by kyriakos »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #12

Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few…

Definitely most cases are what you describe but doesn't being pessimistic about every announcement kill innovation in the long run?

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#15

Post by rsfern »

Robotbeat wrote: post #3

Yet again, the useless milliamp-hours per gram for one component of a cell instead of actual energy per unit mass for a whole cell. What is the Watt-hours per kilogram????

The uni press release sort of buried the lede, but if you read the methods section of the paper they are doing these measurements in a coin cell with a sodium anode.

This is early stage cathode optimization research, everyone reports current density and charge-discharge curves because the power density requires both high current density and stable operating voltage. Also you want minimal degradation with charging cycles. You can integrate those discharge curves to get power density if you want, but I’m not sure what it’s supposed to really add at this point in the research pipeline. You need to scale up from the lab form factor anyway to get something reasonable to work with

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03757-z

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#16

Post by IgorPartola »

kyriakos wrote: post #13
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #12

Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few…

Definitely most cases are what you describe but doesn't being pessimistic about every announcement kill innovation in the long run?

Will it? If I found a way to build a legitimately better battery then I would just answer these questions. Some batteries also have very specialized uses where they optimize for different things. I don’t need crazy numbers of recharge cycles or high current draw in, say, a smoke detector, but longevity is nice.

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#17

Post by mianos »

ricardobeat wrote: post #14

If Lithium is dangerous, Chlorine is taking it up a notch. As far as I understand it basically sets anything it touches on fire, and at high concentrations is deadly within a few breaths.

It can combust when it comes in contact with many substances but much less so than lithium. It is a lot more toxic than the lithium salts in batteries.

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#18

Post by colechristensen »

kyriakos wrote: post #13
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #12

Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few…

Definitely most cases are what you describe but doesn't being pessimistic about every announcement kill innovation in the long run?

No.

When you can read several “breakthrough” articles any a topic a month, every month for decades they stop being interesting. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, today’s cure for cancer and 10x density battery are no different than any other: almost certainly nothing. People handing out money to researchers and new tech businesses need to be skeptical too.

The public just needs to be exposed to these things much later when they have a higher chance of becoming real.

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#19

Post by PhantomGremlin »

nixass wrote: post #5

"new battery tech" and "fusion is 10 years away" - name better duo

We had a similar one yesterday: "Cancer treatment breakthrough".

@dang wound up changing that one to a different article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342527

The thing about batteries and about cancer treatments is that there has been very meaningful progress over the years.

In contrast, the fusion timetable seems to be getting worse. Now ITER is projected for "full fusion in 2035". So it's actually more than 10 years away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Re: Stanford researchers make rechargeable batteries that store 6x more charge

#20

Post by adrian_b »

ricardobeat wrote: post #14

If Lithium is dangerous, Chlorine is taking it up a notch. As far as I understand it basically sets anything it touches on fire, and at high concentrations is deadly within a few breaths.

While that is true, using it safely in batteries is a solved problem.

The Stanford researchers have just found a method to modify the existing non-rechargeable lithium-thionyl chloride batteries, to become rechargeable.

Lithium-thionyl chloride batteries have been used for almost a half of century in applications requiring the highest reliability and you can buy them easily from many stores.

Post reply on HN