- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/693048
You must log in or register to comment.
This has got to be better than lithium mining.
deleted by creator
3kW vibrator?
15m42s:‘’'(
Normal vibrator…7 weeks.
This just in! Another woman was found profusely gone under the sheets on her bed. This was discovered by a neighbor who kept hearing humming and occasional cat-like death moans. At some point after 7 weeks of this it suddenly stopped prompting the neighbor to visit the victim’s home.
The poor woman is recovering. She is an upholsterer, unrelated to the story, but upholsterers never die, they recover. Leather makers do die. They die a lot.
(6 days, 10h - not counting when it overheats)
While Sodium-Ion sounds legitimately promising, we’ve all read so many articles about “revolutionary new battery tech” over the years that the default response is “cool, let me know when mass production starts.”
“cool, let me know when mass production starts.”
(“to the best of my knowledge, that is now, immediately.”)
HiNa opened a 1 GWh sodium-ion battery factory in December 2022. Since then, both BYD and CATL have opened huge sodium-ion battery factories.
I only pay attention if Dr. Goodenough’s name is somewhere in the ecosystem.
The article literally starts off with a mass produced $800 Sodium Ion battery that you can buy right now.
Because it’s an ad…you all know that,right?
Did…did you want them to keep it a secret?
It being an ad doesn’t change anything in an of itself. They’re correct in saying that there is a mass-produced, consumer grade product available. Unless that is a lie, or said product is complete trash, this solves the “call me it’s mass-produced” problem the original commentor has.
Did you read the article? This isn’t about a research paper that talks about theoretical lab experiments. Sodium batteries are in real world application right now. Mainly in China and South America.
You can buy sodium batteries from AliExpress. It’s been available for a while. I was thinking about ordering a few but I ended up spending my hobby budget elsewhere. There’s no economies of scale yet for sodium battery tech. You can get the battery but there is zero electronics available for it. Mainly you’d have to design your own charger and battery management modules. That’s out of my pay grade. I’ve been waiting for Chinese engineers to mass produce such things.
You can buy sodium batteries from AliExpress.
You can buy a lot of bullshit from AliExpress.
The sub is about technology, not industry. Also, look at the advances in battery technology in the last 30 years. There have only been 3 notable technology advances in the last 40 years from a consumer perspective, but there have been significant advances within each of those major technology changes, resulting in Wh/kg increasing by 6 to 10 times and $/Wh dropping about 99%.
If you want to hear about things that could happen or are about to start happening in industry, this is the right community. If you want to know what you can buy tomorrow, try Amazon.
Feels weird to gatekeep that - the des says ‘news or articles’ so an article about some ancient tech isn’t for this community?
I understand it as anything tech related, that explains/talks about technology, manufacturing tech included.
The ‘not industry’ part as in macroeconomics & geopolitical stuff - I agree on that.
The point is not about this particular article, but the general attitude of that comment, which boils down to “Why is there an article about a technological breakthrough that may never pan out in my community about technology?” I feel like these guys would have complained about Newton’s quaint ideas for a new way to use mathematics. The fact this particular article is about technology that is demonstrably taking off while they complain about articles on battery tech not being implemented is pretty next level.
Oh, I see.
I was just commenting on ‘this community isn’t about industry’ bcs I didn’t quite understand that (but my comment was a bit unclear, should have added the quote I was referring to).All good. I just keep seeing this all the time about batteries, simply because most of the technological advances are slow, cumulative, aggregate, and largely invisible to consumers. Then people complain about how none of these advances ever make it to market while ignoring, for example, how many pounds old, barely capable cell phones were compared to the functionality of smartphones these days that can run for a full day on a battery a fraction of the size we had for those old behemoths, all apparently without any of those breakthroughs making it to market. I mean, look at the first cell phone in this article. I suspect some advancements occurred in batteries between then and now.
Oh, I’m fully aware how battery tech advanced and/or awkwardly staggered in some areas.
Phones are a great example, the rise of capacities through diffident technologies were fast & very close for people to experience first hand.I just wish we would have started this push a century ago.
Absolutely. If we had done so with batteries and solar, imagine where we could have been. Both technologies languished for far longer than they had to.
resulting in Wh/kg increasing by 6 to 10 times and $/Wh dropping about 99%.
And yet, a Tesla model S costs $10,000 more than 2012.
I’ll take out of context quotes for $100, Alex.
Those changes are over 40 years, only 13 years of which apply to your reference, and include only one component of a luxury vehicle. Also, the current base price for a Tesla Model S that it showed me was $150k. If we apply inflation to $140k since 2012 ($150k minus the $10k you said), we get a value of $197k. So, $47k cheaper in 2025 dollars.
I suppose you blame battery prices for why McDonalds costs more, too?
Tesla, the company run by a nazi capitalist and which has a value so inflated it’s amazing it hasn’t imploded under its own weight, raises it’s prices and you’re blaming batteries? You do know that every saving a corporation makes goes towards profits and that they never lower their prices as long as people are buying(and even then, they refuse to most of the time)?
There’s correlation not equalling causation and then there’s whatever the hell this is. Like one of the final bosses of that logical fallacy.
Yeah, I want to buy a car w/ reduced range at substantially lower prices, but I can’t do that right now. Give me a sub-$20k option to get to work and back and then I’ll get excited about the tech.
Second-hand Nissan Leaf?
Right, used cars are feasible, I’m talking about new cars. A sub-$20k new commuter should be possible w/ sodium ion batteries.
Nothing factually wrong with the article, but it has this sound of “this technology will solve all our problems” to it that I find highly problematic. Seven out of nine planetary boundaries are exceeded, climate change just being one of them. And all of them are exceeded because of our wasteful and growth-oriented way of life.
Because of
our wasteful and growth-oriented way of lifecapitalism.FTFY.
Partially. It’s more that people don’t click unless the headline is sensational.
We can change our technology to be more sustainable or we can regress to a pre-industrial society with 90% of the population dying in the process. Which do you prefer?
That’s a false dichotomy. We can also improve our technology while ditching capitalism.
That’s reductive. Seeing capitalism as the root cause of all problems is disingenuous. The particular ideology oligarchies are using to justify their rule is incidental.
No, it’s not. Not seeing that it’s capitalism is the reductive view. Instead of trying to type down a huge text while I’m tired, I’d like to introduce a 112 year-old text that still seems extremely relevant today:
Moreover, capitalist production, by its very nature, cannot be restricted to such means of production as are produced by capitalist methods. Cheap elements of constant capital are essential to the individual capitalist who strives to increase his rate of profit. In addition, the very condition of continuous improvements in labour productivity as the most important method of increasing the rate of surplus value, is unrestricted utilisation of all substances and facilities afforded by nature and soil. To tolerate any restriction in this respect would be contrary to the very essence of capital, its whole mode of existence. After many centuries of development, the capitalist mode of production still constitutes only a fragment of total world production. Even in the small Continent of Europe, where it now chiefly prevails, it has not yet succeeded in dominating entire branches of production, such as peasant agriculture and the independent handicrafts; the same holds true, further, for large parts of North America and for a number of regions in the other continents. In general, capitalist production has hitherto been confined mainly to the countries in the temperate zone, whilst it made comparatively little progress in the East, for instance, and the South. Thus, if it were dependent exclusively, on elements of production obtainable within such narrow limits, its present level and indeed, its development in general would have been impossible. From the very beginning, the forms and laws of capitalist production aim to comprise the entire globe as a store of productive forces. Capital, impelled to appropriate productive forces for purposes of exploitation, ransacks the whole world, it procures its means of production from all corners of the earth, seizing them, if necessary by force, from all levels of civilisation and from all forms of society. The problem of the material elements of capitalist accumulation, far from being solved by the material form of the surplus value that has been produced, takes on quite a different aspect. It becomes necessary for capital progressively to dispose ever more fully of the whole globe, to acquire an unlimited choice of means of production, with regard to both quality and quantity, so as to find productive employment for the surplus value it has realised. From Rosa Luxemburg: The Accumulation of Capital, Chapter 26 - The Reproduction of Capital and Its Social Setting
This passage is kind of an introduction to Rosa Luxemburg’s definition of imperialism. Back then, capitalism was not yet developed in the whole world and she argued that simply because it’s a question of survival for companies, these companies will push for the right to exploit the whole world. And now, 112 years later, I’m pretty sure we can agree that happened. And in the past few decades, when they can’t expand spacially, now it’s all about squeezing every last bit of profit from nature, the workers and the consumers.
The particular ideology oligarchies are using to justify their rule is incidental.
Here, we have a point of agreement. The USSR developed into something that was no better than capitalist states. In my opinion, that’s because it’s bureaucracy developed into something very similar to the burgeoisie in capitalism, resource hoarders led by self-interest.
But I believe your answer built on another false dichotomy here. The alternative to capitalism I have in mind isn’t a one-party state with central planning and communist aesthetics. I’m more of a proponent of decentralized power, dismantling the state and people governing their surroundings cooperatively.
Personally when I say I want to ditch capitalism, the first thing I think of, among many, is simply about democratizing the workplace. Cooperatives have proven themselves to be superior than the current private model in a variety of metrics. If we reduce the defining characteristic of capitalism as needing capital to produce more capital, the current issue is that cooperative enterprises struggle to obtain the initial capital necessary to get started. Even though they have much greater success rates, banks have historically refused to give loans to these endeavers. There exists non profits to try and fill this void but its not enough.
But… It is the root of a lot of problems and it helps the oligarchs… And it just sucks and makes no sense in general?
It makes a lot of sense, but I doubt we can have a rational debate about that. In short, people tend to be motivated by profit, so theoretically productivity goes up when the economic system rewards that.
The root of the problem has little to do with the economic system, and it’s like blaming bombs for war. The real problem is government structures that reward and encourage consolidation of power, both in the government itself and in the private sector. If you strip away capitalism, you just consolidate that power into the public sector, and for examples of that look at China and the USSR.
I would think that people on Lemmy who likely left other social media due to centralization wouldn’t be so enamored w/ more centralization in the government space. We need solutions that look like Lemmy in the public space to decentralize power so we don’t run into this type of problem. I don’t think there’s a magical structure that fixes everything, and I don’t even necessarily think that capitalism has to be the dominant economic system in play, I just think we need to come up with ideas on how to reduce the power of those at the top.
Specific example of the US military
We should dramatically reduce the federal standing military, increase the National Guard to match, and put stricter limits on when the President can use the National Guard. IMO, the only way the President should access the National Guard is if one of the following happen:
- governor explicitly yields control, or the state’s legislature forces the governor to yield control
- states vote with a super majority to declare war
- legislative branch votes to declare war with a super majority
That’s it. The President would otherwise be left with a small standing military that’s enough to deter or perhaps assist in peacekeeping, but nowhere near large enough to invade another country.
I personally think we should embrace capitalism as it’s decentralized by nature, unless forces centralize it, and then create rules that discourage/punish over-centralization. For example, I think small companies should have liability protections, and larger companies should lose it, such that lawsuits could target specific individuals in the organization instead of allowing the organization to be used as a shield. For example, if a company files bankruptcy and it’s over a certain size (maybe $1B market cap? $100M?), then shareholders and top executives become responsible to cover whatever the debts are still unresolved after liquidation. If a crime is committed, it shouldn’t simply result in a fine that’s factored in as the cost of doing business, it should result in arrests. The problem isn’t capitalism, it’s corruption and protectionism.
the people can hold their politicians more easily accountable if the politicians live closer to the people.
it’s some kind of “pitchforks and torches” thing: In historical times it was usual that people simply walked up to the castle of the feudal lord and demanded improvements if their life was too shitty or if they were treated too unfairly. That was possible because the feudal lord mostly lived within walking distance of where the peasants lived, like, maybe in the next village or sth, but not farther than that in most cases. As a consequence, feudal lords had a very significant interest in being on good terms with their neighbours and keeping the people happy enough so they won’t start a revolt over high taxes or sth.
Today, that’s not possible because all those politicians that decide the law (and therefore our fate) live far-away (thousands of miles!) in places that neither you or me can ever personally visit. Hence, there is no accountability. We need to shift power back to the local levels; only that way we can personally ensure our wellbeing.
In short, people tend to be motivated by profit
Only in a society that commodifies your existence and success based on the wealth you generate/hold
Unless we’re changing the definition of profit to status
Come on. Even animals are motivated by profit: getting more out of something than you put into it. Profit doesn’t have to mean “shareholder dividends.”
It’s so naive to claim that it’s only society’s setup and status pressures that make us care about getting better things for less effort. As if that hasn’t been the aim of every individual AND every society since the dawn of time.
The easiest way used to be to just plunder people. Take their shit. Now it’s your shit. Easier and faster than making the shit. Woohoo.
Then trade entered the chat, and it was the first time that people started to think there might actually be a better way: that both parties could walk away from an exchange better off, and that it might be in each of their interests to keep the other alive.
Could you provide a realistic alternative that we could transition into?
At a certain point, profit can turn to status, like with the super wealthy. Elon Musk seems to be pushing for $1T, not because the extra money matters, but because he wants the status of being the first to get there.
But if you look at the quiet majority, many people will take more stressful roles because of the higher earning potential. So they’re increasing their output specifically to get a better standard of living. Those types tend to be contractors, small business owners, and early stage startup employees.
If you look at the alternative, such as China or the USSR, those who rise to the top aren’t those with the highest productivity, but those most able to play the political game. If you look at a small engineering company, it’s generally those with the most technical capability who rise through the ranks, but once you get to larger companies, higher roles generally get taken over by business types, i.e. those best able to play the business side of the political game. It’s the same process, just with different mechanisms for gaining power.
Any proper solution here needs to fix the problem of the wrong people getting to positions of power. The economic system isn’t particularly relevant, other than setting the rules of the game. The best solution, IMO, is to make the rules of the game such that you get punished hard if you don’t know what you’re doing (i.e. you’re a business type running an engineering firm firing top talent to cut quarterly costs), and you get rewarded if you do. If we actually put execs in jail for problems their businesses create, I think we’d quickly see companies like Boeing change their leadership to one that will prevent problems, such as someone w/ an engineering or safety background.
That’s why I think government and the economy should be as separate as possible, and in fact in an adversarial relationship. Bureaucrats should be rewarded for catching crime in the private sector, and private companies should have real incentives to keep everything above board. That can’t happen when politicians are literally funded by the companies they’re supposed to be regulating.
Capitalism may be workable with strict regulation and proper social safety nets. The problem is that we have crony capitalism, which allows billionaires to essentially control the laws, which concentrates power into too few hands, similar to other oppressive forms of government. A key piece we are missing to make capitalism more workable is right in the word itself: “cap”. There should be a cap on how much wealth any one individual can accumulate.
Capitalism is not reformable because it fundamentally relies on ever increasing rates of profit and exploitation. The first is impossible in a finite world, and the second is untenable to anyone who believes in justice.
Corporations that are incentivized to make number go up and grow indefinitely at the expense of all else are a big part of the problem. Proper anti-trust regulation that is actually enforced to limit their size, as well as an aggressive wealth tax to limit individual wealth would go a long way.
Fundamentally, though, capitalism rewards those who seek power over those who contribute to society and also doesn’t incentivize long-term societal well-being. Regulation would only limit how much power any one psychopath can gain. If we could start from scratch and create a new society with any system we wanted, it would not be Capitalism.
Which system should it be in your scenario?
I agree. The US have oligarchic crony capitalism supported by an utterly corrupt political system. Trying to abolish capitalism without restoring democracy and the rule of law is a fools errand. Not like it’s never been tried. And every time it just replaced one ruling clique of assholes with another one.
Yes.
How tf does this dumb shit get 15 upvotes?
The world isnt binary. There are plenty of options in between those two. We could reduce our global emissions drastically without any noticeable difference in quality of life for most people. There is so much junk and single use stuff being produced that we could replace or simply stop producing. Banning all forms of commercial AI would hurt literally nobody except the idiots that decided to make it their career. If governments were serious about fighting climate change they would just take control of large parts of the industry and force them to stop making pointless shit that nobody actually needs.
Question: would I have to give up my exploitative companies that fuel my bid to become the first King of Internet? Because that’s kind of a dealbreaker for me.
What are you talking about, you filthy usurper? I’m the only legitimate king of the internet!
Are you inviting me to a money fight? I do love those. Let’s both put in ludicrous bids on some AI company and fight over ownership to pump it’s value in the market, I haven’t done one of those in months. Winner buys the next yacht we sink in the Bermuda Triangle to appease the Elder Ones, Respect upon their Unknowable Names. If only the poor knew how hard we worked to prevent this puny planet from being eaten by elder demons, they would be grateful.
Pathetic! My penis rocket is much bigger than your penis rocket!
The article has so many acronyms in it, I had to give up reading it. I assume this isn’t just cat like typing?
As bullish as I am on Sodium-ion batteries, only very recently did researchers figure out how to boost the charge capacity](https://phys.org/news/2025-10-sodium-ion-battery-breakthrough-power.html), making any attempted commercial models in use so far nice, but not the final form where normies are buying them from Home Depot.
The Sehol car mentioned is a niche configuration of a common model, because the Li-ion model goes farther between charges. Other than the launch in 2023, and articles recycling the same info, find me 1 article that doesn’t use words like “could” or “will” or “might” about sales of this model? Same thing for the BYD Seagull with Na-ion batteries. It’s all greenwashing news where if you dig at it even slightly, you see how not real any of it is.
It’s closer than it was 5 years ago, but it’s still not a “revolution” by any means.
You dropped this [
HiNa supplied sodium-ion batteries for JAC Motors in 2023. Early batteries had lower gravimetric energy density (145 Wh/kg) and volumetric energy density (330 Wh/liter) than LFP, but sodium-ion batteries have already improved since then. They have outstanding temperature range, yielding 88% retention at -20°C. For reference, the discharge capacity of NMC at 0°C, −10°C and −20°C is only 80%, 53%, and 23% of that at 25°C. The HiNa batteries had a cycle life of 4,500 cycles with 83% retention and a 2C charge rate, but even better sodium-ion batteries are on their way.
…
These developments point the way to much more. The cost of sodium battery materials is much lower than for any lithium battery. There are no resource bottleneck materials like cobalt or lithium to contend with. In addition, aluminum can be used for electrodes, whereas lithium requires copper for one of the electrodes. Carbon or graphite and separator materials will be similar, but in all other respects, sodium has much lower material costs. Compared to LFP, sodium does not require phosphorous, a substance that is almost exclusively sourced from one state in north Africa, nor lithium, a relatively abundant but more expensive substance than sodium. LFP cannot compete on material costs or temperature range, and both BYD and CATL expect to phase it out first in energy storage.
Early batteries had lower gravimetric energy density (145 Wh/kg) and volumetric energy density (330 Wh/liter) than LFP, but sodium-ion batteries have already improved since then.
OK, and where are the new numbers? 1% better, but still much worse than lfp?
Edit:a bit later they mention 175 Wh/kg and 10,000 lifetime cycles for some catl cells, that is not too bad, but still not great with lfp at about 200 Wh/kg which still is less than
Lithium IonNMC.with lfp at about 200 Wh/kg which still is less than Lithium Ion.
LFP is a lithium-ion technology. You probably meant “worse than NMC”, which is another, older, higher density but less safe lithium-ion technology.
Right, thanks. did not remember that name and searching yielded articles writing it like that so I went with it.
I got a LIPO4 battery to run my tiny plastic boat or canoe with a trolling motor, most amazing performance I’ve ever seen. Hours of full thrust, never dropped below 20% power. So what’s up with that tech?
10.000 charge cycles.
And cheaper, hopefully.
I think it will displace lead acid use case first where its lighter in the same form factor and more resilient in cold. Already seeing small engine batteries. You can buy a car battery today on amazon but i understand it doesn’t play welll with alternator regulators, but that can change with retrofits or automakers adapting smarter regulators.
No, it actually hasn’t. It’s also not any better than any other battery tech out there right now. Longer term but less volume storage is a trade off.
What happened to these Graphene batteries and capacitors we were supposed to have by now?
More durable, cheaper, can be operated at a wider temperature range and much safer, but at a cost of lower energy density.
They look like a big step forward for uses where density matters little, like grid energy storage or small scale home backups.
The thing currently costs at least 50% more than the closest equivalent LiFePo4 from the same brand. The only real advantage seems to be it’s ability to handle sub freezing temperatures, but usability still drops dramatically (both capacity and available power delivery). Everything else is straight up worse in this one in direct comparison.
It’s only the first product, so it’ll most certainly get better. Also as numbers of products sold rise, costs fall. Once these are cheaper, that are a real choice.
CATL wholesale pricing per kWh is already almost 50% below lifepo with a goal of sub $20/kWh pricing in coming years.
Sorry but the theoretical price of cells isn’t relevant to the consumer. The price of products containing them is. This thing costs currently on the official site 900€ (with some sort of sale going on). The Elite 100v2 with comparable capacity, but using LiFePo4 (included in the same current sale) costs just 550€. To add insult to injury, it also outperforms the Na model in nearly every aspect except sub-freezing performance (where it at least still works, but nowhere near normal spec values either). This includes an abysmal solar charging efficiency for the Na of roughly 50% at normal temperature. Somehow.
Again, once the price reflects the cell cost, this could be a very attractive option. At the moment, unless you’re into camping in sun-zero climates, it’s just a very bad deal.
Edit: to be clear the Na model also doesn’t have a better life expectancy, not according to the spec. Both models are specified to “over 4000 cycles”, not there is no percentage threshold specified for the Na model. The LiFePo4 model includes “to 80% capacity” in that definition. If this is specified somewhere for the Na model, I can’t find it.
sodium-ion is better than acid-lead in every use case (theoretically, when the tech reaches maturity), unlikely to beat lithium ion and others for the high-capacity/low weight type stuff but far as cheap/environmentally safe batteries goes sodium-ion should quickly dominate the field.
Yeah, this kind of tech can actually be groundbreaking.
10.000 charge cycles? You can imagine lot’s of new things with that. Maybe not a capitalistic quick buck but something bettering society.
Also for what I have understood it’s wildly better than lipo etc when it comes to resource use, especially “rare” earth.
10k charge cycles isn’t revolutionary. LFP do 8k and even then they just drop down to 80% of original capacity.
Here is hoping.
