NASA’s incredible new solid-state battery pushes the boundaries of energy storage: ‘This could revolutionize air travel’::“We’re starting to approach this new frontier of battery research."

  • solstice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 years ago

    I never really understood why battery technology was so difficult until a friend put it in perspective for me. The only difference between a battery and a bomb is the rate they release their energy. Now I understand.

  • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    I read this a bit ago. Hopefully all this tech eventually finds it way into aircraft.

    My money “hope” is actually on smaller solid state batteries than can be recharged through the air. Similar to watt up tech and ossia.

    With power over air you need less battery storage and work on keeping the battery from dropping.

    Also I think best case scenario would be a massive reduction in the amount of planes flying.

    High speed rail would be a better solution. Planes across seas and then rail travel on land.

    If trains can get within speeds of air travel then we might be getting there.

    Alas will be long dead before anything happens

  • AKADAP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    There seems to be yet another new battery technology that will save the world every day. And yet, they never become available to the public. I really wish we could ban them from announcing until they can mass produce the battery and sell it to the public. It is almost as bad as all those articles about the “flying car that will be available next year” articles that have been appearing in magazines since the 1950’s.

  • Cam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    2 years ago

    Powering a plane with a battery sounds like a bad idea. Almost worst than EVs.

    • Smacks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Oh yeah, way worse than filling planes with thousands of gallons of extremely flammable jet fuel

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          No, it’s not. Jet fuel does not have lead

          Small propeller planes use leaded fuel

          Actually , one of the proposed solutions to leaded fuel in propeller planes was to see if you could modify the engines to use jet fuel

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Did you read the article? Solid state batteries are much safer than lithium ion batteries when damaged, so the risk of fire is quite different.

      The only other reason it’s a “bad idea” is energy density, and the article is reporting advancements there. Really, just read the article next time.