Oohhh, experimental groundbreaking paradigm shifting revolutionary battery design article #3646263859!
Let’s see if this one isn’t total bullshit like the 3646263841 ones before it!
Seriously this is getting ridiculous, I’ve seen these some literally 40 years ago, 99.99% is bullshit, and now I’m seeing literally over 5 new articles per week.
ITS BULLSHIT.
Call me when there is an actual battery based off peer reviewed research that has been successfully tested in production systems by at least 5 major companies. Until then, BULLSHIT.
deleted by creator
And then people bitch because That news outlet only reports on decades old advancements. It astounds me that supposed innovation focused people are so short sited and the community just laps up all your shit like a bunch of hogs chasing their last meal. Get a grip and go fuck yourselves, the whole lot of ya.
And it’s more ethical and environmentally friendlier than Lithium-Ion, right?
Norway has just started a deep sea excavation for cobalt and copper which as I understand (I’m clueless) can be omitted from sodium-ion batteries. The excavation is roughly of the size of equador and will take place in an area that may contain previously unknown lifeforms and critically endangered eco-system.
A paragraph of an article seems to show their non-chalance regarding the ecosystem impacts and unknown side-effects:
“The Norwegian government recognizes that it can’t be sure any mining would be sustainable—it’s not been able to determine the likely environmental impact of extracting minerals in its waters, nor exactly what minerals are there to be found. “We do not currently have the knowledge needed to extract minerals from the seabed in the manner required,” says Næss.”
These are the guys whose grid runs on 99% hydropower but they keep drilling for fossile fuels and now rare earths to export them and in addition are still hunting wales.
So to summarise: I’m very happy that there seems to be an eco friendly battery where its main component is the overambundantly availabe sodium. And the short wikipedia entry seems to reflect, that it’s a more simple tech.
And it’s more ethical and environmentally friendlier than Lithium-Ion, right?
The amount of metallic sodium we need for these purposes dwarfs compared to what we’re using directly as NaCl, that is, table salt, not just in food but primarily industrial processes. Which again dwarfs compared to what we have available (vaguely gestures at the oceans). Sixth most abundant element in the earth’s crust and conveniently most of it is in the form of huge contiguous dried-up oceans buried somewhere.
Thinking of it should become standard practice to actually use the salt that’s accumulated when desalinating to get drinking water, lots of issues with locally increasing the salt level in the ocean even though on a large scale the change in salinity is absolutely negligible.
Where can I buy a sodium-ion battery?
deleted by creator
https://m.alibaba.com/trade/search?SearchText=sodium_ion_battery
Almost spent 20 seconds on Google. I’m exhausted
You should ice your hands bro. We need you back in top form.
That was kind of my point.
I’m sure every now and then we get something great but pretty much all large tech content providers have fallen to pointless screaming fluff bullshit articles, every. single. day.
Actually, make that all content providers. Tech or not doesn’t matter.
The main problem is just that getting a product from a one-off in a lab to a cost-competitive mass-market product is hard and can take a lot of time, to say the least.
For example, Don Sadoway initially published about a molten metal battery in 2009. He gave a Ted talk in 2012. They’ve run into assorted setbacks along the way and are apparently just starting to deploy the first commercial test systems this year.
It’s less that these breakthroughs are bullshit, and more that commercializing these things is hard. The articles about the breakthroughs are often bullshit, though, or at least way too rosy.
I wonder if novelty products can be made with the one-off batteries. Imagine a $3000 flagship phone but it had 3x the battery capacity of the normal flagship phone while having the same weight and volume. I’d bet some people would pay for that.
A few years ago I completely checked out of all the future tech hype. A million videos and articles about the next big thing and nothing ever comes to fruition.
Fuck future tech news, accept current news, praise analytical news based on historic data.
#3646263859
3646263841
so there were 17 (18 if this one is good as well) successful designs, good to know.
Ladies and gentlemen we got him
it’s more of continuing series of AI hype
its all about getting your masters thesis and 🎓
The article says they were searching for new solid electrolytes… which are meant to be incredibly thin, so they contribute a negligible amount to the total lithium need. It’s far more important to look for ones with a high conductivity to compete with liquid electrolytes.
They designed and built a battery that uses up to 70 per cent less lithium than some competing designs.
This is probably a way of phrasing that means it’s up to 70% less than the absolute most lithium-requiring designs that few/no one uses, and probably only marginally better than most designs actually used. Since they’re very vague about it, I will be sceptical and assume it is way less revolutionary than the headline suggests.
Also, lithium is of pretty low concern when it comes to the materials in current cells. Stuff like cobalt and nickel are more critical and would be larger news.
LFP batteries are both nickel and cobalt free, and are being used in production cars right now (e.g. Tesla model 3/Y standard range options). That technology has long arrived.
Yes, also Lithium Manganese Spinel cells have been around since 1996 and also don’t contain any nickel and cobalt. This is good but many vehicles and devices still use NMC and NCA due to the better specific energy density which is where LFP is limited (but can output more power and is much safer). Tesla (and every EV manufacturer) compromises on the battery depending on what chemistry they use, where if they could reduce the need for expensive metals while maintaining specific energy it would be pretty newsworthy.
Yeah, for cars, energy density is the name of the game. We honestly don’t need more output power and Tesla is not one to care about safety lol.
But indeed for grid storage, those chemistries are much more useful where energy density is less critical.
this work does nothing to address this, and they also include yttrium, because they focus on solid electrolytes for some reason (probably because chemical space is smaller)
Also, AI would have just sped up an existing plan they had to try new approaches because AI doesn’t create new ideas or think of things out of nowhere.
If you tell AI to do things within a certain range and it gives you results then AI came up with a design as much as google came up with search results when you put something into the search bar.
That’s not true at all. AI can in fact generate novel techniques and solutions and has already done so in biotech and electrical engineering. I don’t think you understand how AI works or what it is
I think maybe people are running into a misunderstanding between LLMs and neural nets or machine kearning in general? AI has become too big of an umbrella term. We’ve been using NNs for a while now to produce entirely new ways to go about things. They can find bugs in games that humans can’t, been used to design new wind turbine blades (even made several asymmetrical ones which humans just don’t really do), or plot out entirely new ways of locomotion when given physical bodies. Machine learning is fascinating and can produce very unique results partly because it can be set up to not have existing design biases like humans do
And the nature of computers is that they are magnitudes better than humans at brute forcing. Machine learning can brute force (depending on the technique, it can be smarter than brute forcing, being more efficient) test many many many more designs and techniques than we could manually do. Sure it’ll fail many times, but it’s just a numbers game, and it can pump those numbers. It’ll try a lot of weird and unique stuff we wouldn’t even think to try, with varying degrees of success.
Name one that wasn’t just doing the thing it was told and the users being surprised. You know, the same way that people are surprised when research has results they did not expect using other approaches.
It can apply existing concepts in ways we haven’t thought of. AI has been used for exactly this thing for years in chemistry. When given constraints (less lithium) and parameters (with this much capacity) it can try permutations of various designs that theoretically meet those conditions.
Yes AI is overhyped, yes it’s often exaggerated by news sources, but that doesn’t mean AI is a non-invention or something. It’s a long way off from any of the lofty goals that are often thrown around by tech ceos, but that doesn’t mean it’s useless.
It can apply existing concepts in ways we haven’t thought of, like people do. AI has been used for exactly this thing for decades in chemistry. When given constraints (less lithium) and parameters (with this much capacity) it can try permutations of various designs that theoretically meet those conditions.
We have had weather models, astronomical models, and all other kinds of computer based prediction methods that do multiple permutations that theoretically meet conditions. AI is just another step forward by doing better pattern recognition and identifying relationships with data based on design choices. All of the chemistry findings came from the system being designed to try things they would not normally test for because testing is expensive and AI can run simulated tests faster and cheaper.
My point is that saying ‘AI came up with’ is 100% inaccurate phrasing intended to trick people into thinking that AI is intelligent instead of just being a very complex tool used to do things we already do faster. It allows for trying more permutations and more pattern recognition, but is just another approach to existing computer models that have also identified things we did not expect. Computer models used to identify starts with planets, but we don’t call those intelligent because they aren’t being sold as something they are not.
Not even close to true
Do you think AI just does things unprompted?
No one said anything about unprompted
😏
😳
Not all batteries even use lithium. So why not just go with 100% less lithium, if that’s the target metric.
you would know that if you read the article. they replaced part of lithium in electrolyte with sodium, so that they can use less lithium. the problem is decreased ion mobility ie less power density in real life terms.
Baker and Murugesan both say that lots of work is left to optimise the new battery.
bet
i’m gonna mostly ignore this finding because it sounds like extension of AI hype. real lab work is still absolutely critical in order to make it work
you would know that if you read the article.
I did read it, the snippet I used is from the last part of the article…
And then there’s a hundred other factors. How many charge cycles does it get? Cold weather performance? Can it be mass produced? Does it improve safety over current cells?
It might be useful for what it leads to. Batteries get better because we explore ten different options and then one of them works out. People have gotten less excited over individual discoveries like this for mostly fair reasons. But then there’s another layer of understanding beyond that where you see it as one path of many.
This post title is pretty bad. Even the news article says “Scientists use AI [read: machine learning] to [come up with new battery idea]”.
It’s a real shame but I’m seeing this more often on all media sources. How do we combat these shitty titles?
Surely on Lemmy we have some power? I’ve downvoted and moved on but is that really all I can do?
Maybe we can put AI on task to detect shitty titles about AI
I wish I had a solution. But its the same with all shitty titles, you have to hope people click and read the article/comments in order to get the nuanced information.
"Sure Dr.battery, I can create a set of instructions to create a new battery that uses less lithium for you!
Step one, use 70% less lithium.
Step two, drain the butter into a pan.
Step three, enjoy your new battery!
Remember: batteries can be dangerous and it’s always advised to check with your battery professional before making a battery."
I hate those sensationalist titles that portrait AI as if some sort of sentient being, and not just a tool the researchers used. The secondary title should have been the main one.
OK, but is the energy density comparable?
“His team built a working battery with this material, albeit with a lower conductivity than similar prototypes that use more lithium.”
I do know that because of Ohm’s law, this directly translates to less available current than conventional electrolytes. There’s not enough info to determine mAh though.
Yeah, batteries internal resistance is a huge factor in their usability and the speed they charge.
Especially in the modern day where a lot of their use is towards high amperage applications like cars.
People need to understand tho, Lithium batteries are usually only about 11% lithium, Lithium Ion batteries are mostly Cobalt and other metals. So at most you’re replacing 6% of a batteries total mass.
Mostly cobalt is also not accurate. There’s a small part of cobalt in some batteries.
Other like LiFePo are cobalt free.
All energy density is comparable. That’s what makes it energy density.
comparable adjective Similar or equivalent.
pedantic adjective Being finicky or fastidious, especially with language.
Didn’t humans meanwhile come up with battery design that doesn’t use lithium at all?
Batteries that don’t use lithium are older than batteries that use lithium, so…
Yes, it is just using our Data bases. what people are calling AI is a chat bot on Steroids and Meth with lots of stolen data, if the mass lawsuits win, a lot of this AI Stuff will be gone overnight.
Every time we get one of these articles we see some advancement in battery tech. But that is usually superseded by the amount of power hungry components new tech uses. So phones have gotten more complex with more power hungry components and every time we improve battery tech, the tech giants engineers figure out a way to utilise that new tech to cram more power hungry components inside and that’s why batteries don’t last as long as we remember.
There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.
It’s kind of like CPU power and software bloat.
On my S10E I could adjust the CPU power limit to 80%. I had great battery life. Like two days of battery life. Until one android update when it went away.
I don’t understand why these updates seem to take away some of the most useful features imaginable (the optional CPU underclock) and in return we get “dIfFeReNtLy ShApEd BuTtOnS” and “NeW eMoJi InTeGrAtIoNs”
This is why we need to change the way we do things every few years, move faster than our waste stream.
Which is faster turning your phone on and checking your email or turning your desktop on and checking your email? Which lasts long your cellphone battery or your laptop battery? Which has more free software that has been vetted for problems in one location your computer or your cellphone?
It isn’t that your phone is better, it is not, it has just not yet become shitty. Give it time, and then move on to the next thing. The thing that hasn’t yet been shat on.
Not really sure what your comment has to do with the article.
The headline is a battery that uses less lithium, not a battery that generates more voltage, has a longer life, or is otherwise better at powering things. The advancement here is a materials advancement that we desperately need as lithium is a finite resource.
In response to the naysayers who don’t think we ever use these battery technologies that we developed. The people in the comments of this post specifically.
Sounds like Moore’s law for battery life.
There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.
That’s too much of a blanket statement to be believable as factual truth.
I’ll let a battery expert tell you instead.
I’ll let a battery expert tell you instead.
Tell me what, that I agree with what the article you posted says? Seems self-evident in my initial response, pushing back against the “not going to see any improvement” comment …
There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.
That’s too much of a blanket statement to be believable as factual truth.
From the article…
Moore’s Law has simply outpaced battery technology, meaning that our phones have gotten better — and demanded more power — at a much faster rate than advancements in batteries have.
… and …
It’s not that there haven’t been any improvements: we’ve been able to steadily increase energy density over the past few years by shrinking down internal components. But according to Srinivasan, “Five years ago, it became clear we couldn’t remove any more things, there were fires. We’ve reached a stage where new improvements in energy density are going to come from changing battery materials, and new materials are always slower compared to what I would call engineering advances.”
Those are two different things. We’re using the new battery tech (and hence agreeing with the article), its just that the new battery tech can’t keep up with the computer tech’s power needs.
What about solid state batteries that can charge in 2 minutes instead of one hour? And have better capacity and a longer life?
As soon as they figure out how to actually mass produce them at an affordable price, and fix the swelling issues during high charging a currents, they’ll be available.
I want a semi-solid state batter that turns kinetic energy into stored charge. I want to be able to drop it on the ground, fire a .45 round into it, and have it immediately be fully charged.
this article is about changes to solid electrolyte only, you’d know that if you read the article. these have less conductivity ( = lower power density) tho
And have better capacity and a longer life?
it took 9 months of real lab work by real material scientists just to make it work, things like dendrite formation or swelling aren’t part of this optimization (well at least AI stage), the linked preprint doesn’t even mention dendrites once
you’d know that if you read the article
Oof. You got me there lol.
I read the article and this one line stood out.
It stood out because half of what Murugesan would have expected to be lithium atoms were replaced with sodium.
This isn’t new I think. Sodium-ion batteries were already known. Maybe there was still dendrite formation and this recipe might reduce or eliminate that? We’ll have to wait and see.
In any case, if it can drastically reduce lithium usage that would be good progress.
sodium isn’t electroactive there tho, it’s just a part of electrolyte. also dubious if you can make savings on lithium work if one option for anode is solid lithium metal
Lithium isn’t the hard part, it’s cobalt. I hope they can look at decreasing cobalt next, or maybe using a chemistry that eliminates it entirely.
The issue of eliminating cobalt is specific to Lithium batteries as without it lithium likes to grow dendrites which then causes a short.
And cobalt really wouldn’t be much of an issue if the Congo wasn’t the shithole that it is, it has over 50% of known reserves. Even with addressing child labour making definite inroads “artisanal” and “mining” isn’t something you generally want to hear in the same term short of say gold panning (hey that’s even a hobby for some), as soon as mine shafts get involved it’s a recipe for disaster. Australia, Cuba, the Phillipines, Russia and Canada all have very significant deposits.
More lithium for me!
what, is the thumnail image
it, appears to be a battery tester
ok, thanks
bitch what’s wrong with lithium
A lot. Look into how it’s mined.
Yes do look into it. There are MANY ways to harvest lithium and most are better than what the oil and gas companies does when fracking or drilling on land.
Being better than one of the most destructive industries ever is not a high bar. But the most effective way to harvest lithium remains an open pit mine, which are arguably worse than literally anything else.
The less we need of it, the better either way.
This just sounds like now we can be tracked and ad showered 70% more.
what? what does that have to do with a battery??
I’m sorry you’re upset about ads and privacy.
