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

41–50 of 67 posts

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

#41

Post by regularfry »

twoslide wrote: post #30
__s wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't x off any of the reasons. This list of common pitfalls is nice, but without marking which pitfalls apply you've added nothing to the conversation The earliest instance of it _did_ offer this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26353853 But it seems afterwards people have done the easy part, pasting the list, & not the hard part, reviewing the article closely enough to share with others what hard problems…

The press release is naturally all positive spin, but hints at: [X] it suffers from too few recharge cycles. They mention 200 cycles, whereas 1000+ is common for li-ion.

It's a longer lifetime though. 6x the capacity for 1/5 the recharges is a 20% win in total delivered charge.

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

#42

Post by twoslide »

rsfern wrote: post #36
twoslide wrote: post #33

Really interesting to compare with the publication itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03757-z They don't mention six times more charge anywhere. Rather, the novelty is that it they make a discharge reaction re-chargeable for the first time. The final paragraph hints at a rapid drop-off after the first discharge: > The battery delivered about 3,309 mAh first discharge capacity and was cyclable at 500–1…

I agree about the press release. Though they do run it out to ~100 cycles without too much apparent further degradation, so it’s probably not dead on arrival as a contender against Li-ion?

That's a good point, although I am not sure whether the "six times" claim was based on the first cycle or the subsequent cycles (partly because the authors didn't make it themselves). Even if subsequent cycles are 1/3 as the first, that could still mean twice as much charge as li-ion.

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

#43

Post by kyriakos »

davedx wrote: post #27
kyriakos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Luckily, snarky comments by HN user Cthulhu_ do not generally tend to decrease investment by VC firms or Wall Street into potential new technology companies.

I'm referring to the mentality of dismissing any potential breakthrough because previous announcements didn't work out.

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

#44

Post by minikites »

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?

Does boundless optimism about every announcement drive innovation in the long run?

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

#45

Post by malchow »

Novel chemistries in nano scale in the lab are fun to puzzle about, but pure silicon anode Li-ion batteries really are coming in the next six months, notably from Enovix, and will actually change things. A 2x density upgrade that's real is a whole lot more interesting than a 6x density upgrade that isn't ready for commercialization.

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

#46

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rsfern wrote: post #29
molticrystal wrote: post #21

While it was interesting at first, by peppering inaccuracies or at best oversimplifications, it makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of the content. For example: >Non-rechargeable batteries have no such luck. Once drained, their chemistry cannot be restored. Rechargeable batteries have limited cycles due to problems, mainly solidification or breakdown of electrolytes that prevent restoration, but there are others…

Par for the course for a uni press release, unfortunately. Not picking on Stanford at all, it just seems to be a common theme Unfortunately the paper is not open access and I don’t think there’s a preprint, but from my quick read it seems pretty competently executed. (I’m a materials scientist but not a battery researcher.) The cool thing about this paper IMO is that they’ve found a way to make rechargeable an establ…

> Not picking on Stanford at all, it just seems to be a common theme

Fair to pick on Stanford when they put out releases containing false information. That other institutions also lie isn't an excuse.

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

#47

Post by Someone1234 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #34
twoslide wrote: post #33

Really interesting to compare with the publication itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03757-z They don't mention six times more charge anywhere. Rather, the novelty is that it they make a discharge reaction re-chargeable for the first time. The final paragraph hints at a rapid drop-off after the first discharge: > The battery delivered about 3,309 mAh first discharge capacity and was cyclable at 500–1…

Must be incredibly frustrating to be a researcher and see the media absolutely butcher things you worked on

"The media?" Isn't this a press release from their own University?

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

twoslide wrote: post #42
rsfern wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree about the press release. Though they do run it out to ~100 cycles without too much apparent further degradation, so it’s probably not dead on arrival as a contender against Li-ion?

That's a good point, although I am not sure whether the "six times" claim was based on the first cycle or the subsequent cycles (partly because the authors didn't make it themselves). Even if subsequent cycles are 1/3 as the first, that could still mean twice as much charge as li-ion.

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by Retric »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #19
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 th…

I remember when fusion was 50 years away, then 40 etc. It’s not dropping 1:1 but lower numbers do presumably represent progress.

That said, even if it worked it’s unlikely to be cost competitive due to the dramatic price reduction in wind, solar, and batteries.

PS: ITER’s first plasma is scheduled for 2025, but I think their holding off on DT fusion even if technically it could work on day 1. Which largely comes down to funding, they don’t have anything in the construction pipeline in case there is issues with ITER’s design so they want to be able to modify it after testing without concern for radiation.

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

#50

Post by serf »

Someone1234 wrote: post #47
thatguy0900 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be incredibly frustrating to be a researcher and see the media absolutely butcher things you worked on

"The media?" Isn't this a press release from their own University?

there is usually a separate department that does that kind of release.

the author is listed as a 'Freelance editor and writer and content provider for Stanford University' on LinkedIn, assuming it's the right 'Andrew Meyers from Stanford'.[1]

[1]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-myers-0275b47

Post reply on HN