• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • lloram239@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      While everybody was busy writing bullshit hype articles, we actually got a real revolution with the sodium-ion battery, which you can buy today. It won’t replace Li-ion in terms of energy density, but it’s much more robust, cheap, handles low temperatures, deep discharge and much more charge cycles, making it ideal for off-grid-storage.

      I really wish we had tech news that just reports on stuff that’s tested and available for purchase. Things do actually keep improving, but it’s completely drowned out in all the other hype.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • boomzilla@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is like the third different new battery technology I’ve seen today.

    I’ll believe it when it’s available for purchase.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, that’s been my take on pretty much every single battery article I’ve read, going back to the 90s. like 2 out of 100s has actually come to market.

      Tech like this needs to perform well, be economical, and scalable for manufacturing. Articles come out usually when tech hits the first one or two, but very rarely do all 3 end up true.

  • world_hopper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    This post title is pretty bad. Even the news article says “Scientists use AI [read: machine learning] to [come up with new battery idea]”.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Just what we needed. AI creating more battery types that will never be produced.

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

    • Unyieldingly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    What about solid state batteries that can charge in 2 minutes instead of one hour? And have better capacity and a longer life?

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I wish there is an AI that would optimize how many rolls / folds is enough when trying to wipe off fecal matter.

    • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      No matter what, it’s always good to use less of a resource, if you can get the same outcome. It’s efficiency basically.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Less of one doesn’t meant less overall.

        Lithium is incredibly abundant, we just need to scale up production if we’re going to use so much.

        LFP batteries are great because iron and phosphorus are also plentiful and cheap.

        But if this other chemistry is less Lithium but requires platinum, well maybe thats not good.

        • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Batteries are also very recyclable, so we need a system in place for this, and then we’ll go far in terms of earth’s resources.

          Because both resources, even though they are plentiful, are still finite.