• Asetru@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    10 hours ago

    the breakthrough that makes EVs safer than ICE cars

    Did Toyota write this? EVs already are much safer than ICEs, the headline reads like it’s trying to gaslight people into thinking otherwise.

  • adeoxymus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Maybe a bit irrelevant but why is the article calling it “China’s battery“? I feel like if the researchers were from any other countries academy of science, say France, the title would have simply been something like “scientists discover new ways for fireproof battery”. Maybe it’d say French scientists or so, but not simply “France’s battery”?

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Classic fluff piece to make China look more innovative than they actually are. I wouldn‘t be surprised if we never heard of this tech or if they recycle the same article next year. Tech ‚journalism‘ about China is a mine field of false claims and exaggerations.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Na+ batteries are really cool tech, and with a few more iterations of R&D they can potentially replace Li+ batteries, removing the need for rare earth elements that are toxic to people and the environment, dangerous to extract, and more often than not extracted by child slave labor (such as in Xinjiang and Congo).

        It doesn’t matter how you feel about China, although framing Na+ as “China’s battery” is problematic for other reasons.

    • Sheppa@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Because cool China is so totally innovative unlike the boring west! We gotta hype them up, no one else ever does cool stuff only China brand is cool.

      • greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        They have been trying to murder the US and EU auto industry and dumping biblical shittons of money into battery technology. the EU and the US aren’t trying to compete.

        Its still an advancement for all mankind, even if my countries leadership wont let me have one.

      • Specter@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Actually it’s the other way around.

        The internet is all about “China Bad” so calling it China Battery is a way to depreciate this obviously positive discovery.

        • Sheppa@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 hours ago

          “Should we just not talk about this awesome new tech?”

          “No, let’s put China in front of this totally awesome thing so people will think it’s bad while we hype it up as such a great invention in the article. Oh and don’t mention working conditions, state subsidies, mineral extraction, or any of the usual anti-China talking points, that might make them think it’s not bad”

          • Specter@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I’m sorry you live with so much gratuitous hatred in your heart and I pray you can recover some day.

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 hours ago

              How is pointing out the flaw in your logic “gratuitous hatred”? It doesn’t make any sense that the rationale for calling it “China’s battery” is to make it sound bad, when the article is clearly extolling the virtues of the battery.

              Or is it the part where the other commenter brought attention to the working conditions in China? Because that’s not motivated by hatred, but rather class solidarity. How badly do you have to hate Chinese people to believe Chinese workers don’t deserve better conditions? What about ethnic minorities in China who are having their cultural heritage stripped away from them?

              Is it because the government officials aren’t white, so you believe they can do no wrong? So you’ll just call any legitimate criticism of them racist? That’s like Israel calling anti-zionism anti-semitic. There’s nothing sinophobic about legitimate criticisms of the PRC.

              • Specter@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                28 minutes ago

                Nice argument you’re having with yourself there, buddy.

                I don’t have any affinity for China, but I also don’t like the gratuitous hate they get all over the internet, nor the reduction of Chinese people’s experience to work drones (what you’re doing).

                I had hoped that Lemmy wasn’t gonna be like that, but alas.

              • village604@adultswim.fan
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                People who support China don’t seem to comprehend that shitty countries aren’t a zero sum game.

                You can shit on China’s government while also shitting on the US government.

    • Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Because (most people believe) China controls its scientists with iron fist and they only research what the state wants them to research.

      • Rolder@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        9 hours ago

        For me it’s because they have a tendency to… exaggerate, their research results.

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Sodium batteries are real though. You can buy them today, their big promise was that they would be cheaper than lithium batteries because sodium is abundant and readily available whereas lithium is a rare mineral. Then lithium prices fell through the floor and the value proposition failed, at least for now. They’re also not as energy dense, which is probably what will hold then back from EV use for a while yet, but the claim around being safer holds up.

  • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I thought sodium batteries had considerably less energy density than conventional? Is that not a problem anymore? If that hasn’t been solved, I don’t see how this helps make EVs safer.

    • EisFrei@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 hours ago

      They indeed have less energy density, but I don’t get your point about less safety.

      They work better in high and low temperatures, can be charged a lot faster and don’t degrade as fast. Sodium isn’t as reactive as Lithium, lowering the risk of fires.

      • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 hours ago

        My point is that if they have less energy density, they aren’t a particularity great choice for EVs, as the increased battery size to get the same capacity makes the whole thing much heavier, requiring even more battery to move it.

        I guess for like short range vehicles, it might be fine, but at least around here, thats gunna be a pretty tough sell, because everything is spread out.

        It can’t really make EVs safer if its not being used for them due to the drawbacks, is all.

        • nucleative@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          10 hours ago

          ICE engines use a bunch of physical space for accessory components related to the engine. Li-ion powered e-cars reclaimed a ton of that space (i.e. Tesla has a frunk)

          Perhaps next using a bit more space for a less dense sodium battery in exchange for a vehicle that is 0% explodable is a worthy trade (if claims are true).

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Putting part of the battery in the front, in the crash zone, is going to reduce safety, not improve it.

            One of the main things that improved EV safety over ICE cars is the frunk itself. By removing that massive engine from the front and replacing it with a crumple zone, the car becomes much safer in front impacts.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Do you have a source for that or is it just a conclusion you reached?

              The reason I ask is that I vaguelly remember of seeing somewhere that the way the front of modern ICE cars is designed makes the engine literally fall when a high-speed frontal collision happens exactly so that the front can act as a crumple zone rather than the engine being pushed inside the passenger compartment. That being so, things aren’t quite as simple as you say and I think we need actual real world test results showing that difference in safety rather than mere expectations extrapolated from superficial knowleged about cars.

              • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 hour ago

                I looked it up. 2022 IIHS crash tests showed the Tesla model 3 as being much safer in front impacts.

                Modern cars may make the engine fall in a crash, but it’s still better not to have that mass there in the first place. Having said that, the safety advantages of a frunk may be reduced if you have a bunch of heavy cargo in there.

          • encelado748@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Battery density is energy per kilos. The problem is not only were to put the battery, but also the added weight.

            • EisFrei@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              Leave the weight as is, accept lower range which is offset by faster charging speeds. Or just buy a car with a lithium battery if you cannot accept this.

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                The issue with that is that your range at least needs to make it between charging stations on the highway to be a realistic choice for many people. That might not be a problem in major corridors, but in sparser areas like the US midwest, it’s a legitimate concern.

                Doesn’t mean Na+ is bad, it’s just a young technology. In the next few years I expect to see the energy density increasing rapidly.

              • Kushan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                8 hours ago

                We have faster charging speeds with lithium today, 800v cars that can charge at 300KW+ have been on the market for half a decade, BYD has launched cars that can charge at 2-3x that speed. The charging infrastructure is the bottleneck there, even if all new cars could charge at those speeds it wouldn’t mean much because hardly any chargers can support it.

                Besides it’s almost moot, most EV owners aren’t charging via fast chargers like you would fill up an ICE car, they’re charging at home at much cheaper rates and only using fast chargers for particularly long trips.

              • encelado748@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                9 hours ago

                Same compromise I made when I bought the base range version of my car with LFP chemistry. But I would not go lower in range than that. LFP is already much safer than any gasoline engine. I would like sodium just for the reliable range on low temperatures. Probably in the next years we will reach comparable density for sodium.

      • django@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I guess they suggested, that the batteries won’t be used in EVs, as long as their capacity is significantly lower.

    • Landless2029@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I recall reading the same.

      Sodium batteries make loads of sense for house batteries like solar storage.

      • Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I would love this for my home, as well as at a smaller scale for my homelab, and even potentially things like power tools.

        Just recently a friend doing a home reno project had one of their drill batteries achieve thermal runaway, fortunately while they were home. Made me really think twice about the pile of tools in my garage.

        I’d trade in just about every portable-scale Li-ion battery I own for a slightly less energy dense but safer alternative.

        • Landless2029@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I was hoping eBike could use them. I’ve seen one too many of those go up. Possibly from shoddy 3rd party batteries.

      • JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They should be the default for solar installations and grid-level storage, but are too new.

        They can also replace lead-acid batteries for many applications.

        Lithium will still rule microelectronics and wearables, but all lower density stuff should switch to sodium.

        That being said, for cold environments like Scandinavia and the US Midwest & canada, sodium ion works better in both cold and heat swings than Lithium variants that it might be worth the tradeoff in capacity because in the long cold months, the reduced capacity and performance of lithium chemistries would completely close the gap anyways.