• Toto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wish they gave the current energy density of lithium batteries for comparison.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Here’s a neat comparison of how different chemistries preform. Higher up is higher energy per weight.

      comparison

      Looks like this is pretty old though

    • eltrain123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s a range, but LFP is generally in the 90-160wh/kg and NMC (lithium manganese cobalt oxide) tops out around 275 wh/kg.

      It’s not quite double, but doubles the density of most mass manufactured cells. Time will tell if it gets to scale, but it’s a step in the right direction.

      • Toto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        Feeling stupid: doesn’t this mean more energy per kilogram is possible with Na cells?

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Isn’t most of the weight with hydrogen coming from the high pressure tank and gas regulator?

          My impression is that the gas is light but whole system hydrogen is pretty heavy.

          edit: Did some more reading. Hydrogen is still competitive on a Wh/kg basis, but worse on a Wh/L basis. Larger tanks are harder to fit in passenger cars than batteries and hydrogen’s poor whole system efficiency has kept fuel prices high while lithium batteries and solar power keep getting cheaper.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            H2 to get weight of tank down and highest density can be liquified. This works best by far for aviation that refuels right before takeoff. Can work for commercial boats as well. Costs more energy to liquify than compress.

            • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              This makes hydrogen even more expensive and pushes it further into niches which need maximum range at any cost.

              • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                Renewable h2 can be cheaper than gasoline or kerosene. Even with liquifaction. Has to use behind the meter or wholesale renewables instead of fixed utility pricing with transmission costs.

                Planes typically spend 100x in fuel over lifetime compared to price of plane

                • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Where are you finding this cheap renewable H2?

                  Or is this a theoretical future development?

  • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    Vanadium is relatively abundant, and is produced as a byproduct from steel smelting. This is nice since more carbon intensive steps aren’t required.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Vanadium, including flow batteries, have never provided useful energy storage solutions, and never will.

    The flow application is a scam for vanadium producers to take supply off the market for an already extremely expensive commodity. The advantage is that it does not need recycling to sell it off.

    Consuming it in batteries would be ultra expensive batteries. Lithium much more abundant, as is nickel and cobalt if needed

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sodium batteries are thermal batteries, right? So they need turbines to recover the energy into electricity? Or are these chemical sodium batteries?

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 days ago

      Chemical. It’s in the article:

      Battery prototype

      The researchers also created a battery prototype using the new material, NaxV2(PO4)3, demonstrating significant energy storage improvements. NaxV2(PO4)3, part of a group called “Na superionic conductors” or NaSICONs, is designed to let sodium ions move smoothly in and out of the battery during charging and discharging, according to a press release.

      The material has a unique way of handling sodium, allowing it to work as a single-phase system. This means it remains stable as it releases or takes in sodium ions. This allows the NaSICON to remain stable during charging and discharging while delivering a continuous voltage of 3.7 volts versus sodium metal, higher than the 3.37 volts in existing materials, according to researchers.

      • Aqarius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I wonder, though, if having to use Vanadium defeats the point of dropping Lithium for Sodium.