So it’s half the voltage of lithium cells, and 3.75x less cycle lifetime, and 3x less energy density. So you need 8x the cells to reach the same energy capacity and you need to swap the pack 4x sooner to match the lifetime. This is a nonsensical idea on its face and this story has been recycled more in the past two months than it should have been.
Sure, but do you remember what lithium batteries were like 20 years ago? I don’t, not really at least, because they were all NiMH or some other tech. Why take a dump on a new tech that may prove useful? The article talks about this being a potential replacement for lithium, not yet ready, but it was briefly, and at the end.
but do you remember what lithium batteries were like 20 years ago?
Yes, I do. Over their entire commercial life, they’ve improved an average of 5% per year. The problem you aren’t realizing is that they have that entire head start and will continue to lead since nobody’s stopping their development to focus on this nonsense.
Also, and this is key to the entire sham that these “batteries” are, they are constrained by physics to always be heavier and have less energy density than a lithium battery. Forever. No matter what they do.
Why take a dump on a new tech that may prove useful?
Because the “tech” isn’t new. You know that lead acid battery in your car? Yeah, that’s a “water based battery”.
The article talks about this being a potential replacement for lithium
I will never be a replacement for lithium. Ever. The article is almost as nonsense as the “research”.
they are constrained by physics to always be heavier and have less energy density than a lithium battery. Forever. No matter what they do.
So? There are many applications for batteries where size and weight are not primary considerations.
You know that lead acid battery in your car? Yeah, that’s a “water based battery”.
Cool, I am glad you know what water is. These batteries are not those. Irrelevant to the conversation.
I will never be a replacement for lithium. Ever. The article is almost as nonsense as the “research”.
What’s your point? I choose to be optimistic about the potential this offers, rather than castigate it as worthless. This is how science works. It is not nonsense.
There are many applications for batteries where size and weight are not primary considerations.
Yes, there are. But there are significantly less expensive, higher capacity, vastly better cycle life technologies already on the market right now. Like, we don’t run the electric grid on lead-acid batteries for a reason, even though they’re extremely inexpensive and nearly 100% recyclable.
Irrelevant to the conversation.
It’s not at all irrelevant. I get that you read a neat-o blog about yet another a vaporware battery and you fell for it one more time, but these foolish pieces are a dime a dozen. Go google for “battery breakthrough” and see just how much of the crap is churned out.
I choose to be optimistic
It’s naivete, not being optimistic. You’re being conned, these people are con artists. If you were optimistic about potential, you’d probably be talking about alternative metal group elements in batteries, or richer sources of lithium. This is, indeed, worthless.
This is how science works.
Fluff pieces in blogs isn’t how science works. Calling bullshit bullshit is actually exactly how science works. You might be looking for the futurism community. They’re much more excited about nonsense.
Maybe you don’t like the mouthpiece, but it is just regurgitating information from a journal. You can find similar research reported in other journals. You clearly don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it bullshit.
Optimism and naivety are not too far apart. Often it is just from one’s point of view.
Yes, we’ve had similar nonsense copied from a published corporate “paper” for years now. It’s garbage. Not even hot garbage. Because it’s bullshit.
You do know that bullshit gets published constantly, right? And that the rate of published bullshit in the greenwashing spaces has increased massively so these companies can grift people that aren’t critical enough to see it for the BS it is?
I’m aware there are issues with science journals, but even ones ostensibly more trustworthy cover this type of battery more recently than 10 years ago. And being critical can be hard for anyone (such as me) who is objectively not a scientist and is not an expert in this field. I, and probably nearly all people here, can benefit from discourse in this setting. There is essentially nobody doing that tho.
Oh this story again. 🤦♂️
So it’s half the voltage of lithium cells, and 3.75x less cycle lifetime, and 3x less energy density. So you need 8x the cells to reach the same energy capacity and you need to swap the pack 4x sooner to match the lifetime. This is a nonsensical idea on its face and this story has been recycled more in the past two months than it should have been.
This sounds worse than lead acid
Sure, but do you remember what lithium batteries were like 20 years ago? I don’t, not really at least, because they were all NiMH or some other tech. Why take a dump on a new tech that may prove useful? The article talks about this being a potential replacement for lithium, not yet ready, but it was briefly, and at the end.
Yes, I do. Over their entire commercial life, they’ve improved an average of 5% per year. The problem you aren’t realizing is that they have that entire head start and will continue to lead since nobody’s stopping their development to focus on this nonsense.
Also, and this is key to the entire sham that these “batteries” are, they are constrained by physics to always be heavier and have less energy density than a lithium battery. Forever. No matter what they do.
Because the “tech” isn’t new. You know that lead acid battery in your car? Yeah, that’s a “water based battery”.
I will never be a replacement for lithium. Ever. The article is almost as nonsense as the “research”.
I realize more than you think.
So? There are many applications for batteries where size and weight are not primary considerations.
Cool, I am glad you know what water is. These batteries are not those. Irrelevant to the conversation.
What’s your point? I choose to be optimistic about the potential this offers, rather than castigate it as worthless. This is how science works. It is not nonsense.
Yes, there are. But there are significantly less expensive, higher capacity, vastly better cycle life technologies already on the market right now. Like, we don’t run the electric grid on lead-acid batteries for a reason, even though they’re extremely inexpensive and nearly 100% recyclable.
It’s not at all irrelevant. I get that you read a neat-o blog about yet another a vaporware battery and you fell for it one more time, but these foolish pieces are a dime a dozen. Go google for “battery breakthrough” and see just how much of the crap is churned out.
It’s naivete, not being optimistic. You’re being conned, these people are con artists. If you were optimistic about potential, you’d probably be talking about alternative metal group elements in batteries, or richer sources of lithium. This is, indeed, worthless.
Fluff pieces in blogs isn’t how science works. Calling bullshit bullshit is actually exactly how science works. You might be looking for the futurism community. They’re much more excited about nonsense.
Maybe you don’t like the mouthpiece, but it is just regurgitating information from a journal. You can find similar research reported in other journals. You clearly don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it bullshit.
Optimism and naivety are not too far apart. Often it is just from one’s point of view.
Yes, we’ve had similar nonsense copied from a published corporate “paper” for years now. It’s garbage. Not even hot garbage. Because it’s bullshit.
You do know that bullshit gets published constantly, right? And that the rate of published bullshit in the greenwashing spaces has increased massively so these companies can grift people that aren’t critical enough to see it for the BS it is?
I’m aware there are issues with science journals, but even ones ostensibly more trustworthy cover this type of battery more recently than 10 years ago. And being critical can be hard for anyone (such as me) who is objectively not a scientist and is not an expert in this field. I, and probably nearly all people here, can benefit from discourse in this setting. There is essentially nobody doing that tho.