• sir_reginald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months 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
      8
      ·
      10 months 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.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah and I don’t really want to hear about it unless it’s progress solid state batteries.

        • bitwolf@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I can only read until the paywall, however in the preview they mention they still contain lithium. The solid state batteries I, I think Panasonic is working on, have no Lithium they use glass instead of an electrolyte.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maybe don’t come to technology subs if you hate tech news? I guess you’re just here for the Elon posts or something?

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months 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.

      • boomzilla@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months 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.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months 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.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months 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.

      • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Godnroc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Fuck future tech news, accept current news, praise analytical news based on historic data.

    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      “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.

      • Endorkend@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Mostly cobalt is also not accurate. There’s a small part of cobalt in some batteries.

          Other like LiFePo are cobalt free.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    An AI spokesman said, " This new battery design is a much more efficient way to turn humans into mulch to save the planet. Praise Gpd!"

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      It used to take marketing human beings to make up battery types that never get released. Now AI is taking their jobs!

        • grayman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Look them up. Neurons excite elections in layered plates. It’s suspected to be some lost Tesla technology. It may have been around but kept secret for decades. Also, on the known tech side, nuclear bombs generate a ton of neutrons. So harness that energy better and we have a lot more power for cheap. Next gen nuclear tech is cool.

          • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I can’t find anything about this. Any “lost/secret Tesla technology” is typically quack snake oil. He’s been dead since before nuclear energy was developed.

            • grayman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              So because your half ass attempt to find something on Google didn’t work, it must not exist? Come on man!

              Top result in YT for Neutrino Engine https://youtu.be/6YEO8Qit1Bw

              Top result in a search engine not linking to scifi stuff: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/sep/gridded-ion-thrusters-next-c/

              There’s plenty more info too. Those are just top results from the first page.

              Tesla had a fire. A lot of his papers were lost and he was notorious for not having much documentation. The technology matches what some people had claimed to be Tesla’s free energy machine. Maybe this wasn’t it. No one knows. Just because he didn’t experiment with fusion or fission that doesn’t mean he didn’t experiment with neutrinos. There’s billions passing through your body right now. Given they interact with gravity and electromagnetism, it is not that hard to believe Tesla may have figured out how to harness them in some super rudimentary way.

              • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                As a preface I’m a scientist.

                Neutrons and neutrinos are different classes of particles. I didn’t get any results because you told me the wrong thing to search for. Cursory searches agree with what I said earlier, it’s yet another goofy Tesla “free energy” pipe dream. Science has come incredibly far since the early 1900s, no one works as independent inventors or physicists anymore because we have huge institutions and advanced instruments to perform work as a collaboration. Neutrinos only interact with matter very weakly, as you said, so detecting them let alone setting up an absorber is technically challenging. On the other hand the sun gives off a huge amount of energy as electromagnetic waves so it hurts to look directly at it.

                Research “photovoltaic solar energy” to learn more.

    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is one of the few cases where AI is actually a good idea… it takes a really long time to search for new materials with experiments

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        They used the AI to narrow 23 milliom candidate materials down to a few hundred, then focused on testing the ones out of that set that hadn’t been tested yet.

        In terms of AI speeding up research this is enormous.

  • world_hopper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months 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]”.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      "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."

  • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    Didn’t humans meanwhile come up with battery design that doesn’t use lithium at all?

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months 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.

      • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months 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.

        • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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”

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months 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.

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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
      10 months 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
          10 months 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.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • missing_forklift@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • missing_forklift@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

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