Comments
donescobar t1_is0ta2v wrote
Yea, the small print on things like this are usually like, we’re very excited and expect mass production by early 2050s
[deleted] t1_is1fe2p wrote
[deleted]
DogmaticLaw t1_is1sbv5 wrote
"By single charge, we mean its only charge."
my_lewd_alt t1_is2xfnd wrote
>Charging speeds limited to 10 kwh
kilowatt hours are capacity, speed of charge would be kilowatts
[deleted] t1_is34co6 wrote
[deleted]
my_lewd_alt t1_is3aofx wrote
Actually wasn't being pedantic, just stupid.
CloneEngineer t1_is3wx8s wrote
Kw/h is a meaningless unit. Kw has units of kilojoules/sec, it's already a rate. The unit kw-hr - or kj-hr/sec is a capacity unit cause the time "cancels". Kinda. Kw-hr units are strange in a lot of ways.
I don't think kw / kw-hr are intuitive units for most people.
[deleted] t1_is406ws wrote
[deleted]
Billysmalltits t1_isxgqt8 wrote
So you're saying 1kW/hr, which obviously means a power output of 1kW for a time of 1 hour is less intuitive than saying 3.6 megajoules?
CloneEngineer t1_isxhvzj wrote
You wrote the units wrong also. You want kw*hr, not kw/hr. Maybe not so obvious?
I'm saying kw is already a rate. It's units are J,/s. Kw/hr would have units of J/s-hr. That makes no sense. Another way to say you supply 3.6 MJ in an hour would be to say 1Kw-hr/hr. And hrs cancel to 1Kw.
Most people want kw*hr, not kw/hr. Kw/hr would be the rate of change of charging speed. Ie, I started charging at 1kw, an hour later I'm charging at 11kw, charging rate increased at 10kw/hr.
OmnipotentCthulu t1_is4dhg1 wrote
The only thing i would think you meant to say is the speed is limited to 10kw and added an h on accident. Now that you are getting on him saying we should all know you meant 10kw/h im curious wtf that unit is supposed to mean.
[deleted] t1_is4n3t0 wrote
[deleted]
HighClassProletariat t1_is3z28k wrote
Most humans would not realize that because they don't know the difference between kW and kWh, and that's why this person corrected you.
[deleted] t1_is4nfee wrote
[deleted]
User172381021 t1_is5298a wrote
It's not a shit unit. It just isn't a SI unit. kWh are cool so you can relate it to an hour. If you charge something with 500W you know it has 0.5kWh after an hour. Just like km/h is used instead of m/s
[deleted] t1_is6qano wrote
[deleted]
User172381021 t1_is72xxq wrote
WTH is your strawman here. Please try to understand what i wrote instead of arguing against something i did not say. I did not say anything about vehicles. I agree that in the case of cars and their batteries kWh related to their distance they might be able to travel, kWh does not make sense. But charging money by the kWh is common. So if you charge your 1kWh car battery (or whatever) you know a 1kW supply needs 1hour to fill the battery. And I know how to convert units.
[deleted] t1_is0h3dt wrote
[removed]
Girafferage t1_is0phak wrote
And still lithium based, which doesn't have great projections for availability and cost in the future.
twoinvenice t1_is0vkbi wrote
Lithium isn’t all that rare
Drachefly t1_is21ftz wrote
If the price of Lithium goes up by a factor of 1.5 another big mine in another country becomes profitable to run. If it goes up by a factor of 3 it becomes economical to extract it from seawater.
There is a limit to how bad this price can get, in the medium-long term. You can have price spikes. If those are projected to continue, production will increase and the price will come down.
OldFashnd t1_is0v4pb wrote
Plus the ethical issues with sourcing materials gathered via child labor
BGaf t1_is0vefe wrote
Where is lithium mined by children?
OldFashnd t1_is0ww2e wrote
Lithium isn’t as far as I know (however it does have a lot of environmental implications), but Cobalt is. There is a shit ton of Cobalt in most li ion batteries. Something like 50% of cobalt used worldwide is used in batteries, and most of it is mined in the Democratic republic of Congo where child labor is used in the mines. Children breathing in toxic cobalt dust all day.
Surur t1_is1189g wrote
And 50% of Lithium batteries do not use cobalt.
All petrol refining does.
BGaf t1_is15jc4 wrote
Not all lithium battery chemistries require cobalt.
OldFashnd t1_is1h5uj wrote
While true, at this moment in time most used in EV’s do. I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted, I didn’t say that it was worse than the fossil fuel industry. All I’m saying is that it’s a problem that needs to be addressed, nomatter what industry is using it.
BGaf t1_is1mjtn wrote
Do you have a link I can read about the majority of electric cars are using cobalt chemistries? So far all I can find is 80% of Chinese ev batteries are LFP.
OldFashnd t1_is1u7bh wrote
https://thenextweb.com/news/the-cobalt-free-electric-vehicle-batteries-are-here
> The EV sector uses a combination of lithium-ion battery chemistries, with cobalt-containing cathodes maintaining the largest share. This is due to their energy density and performance –cobalt is particularly important for stability and safety.
I will mention that i mistyped in my previous comment, i meant to say long range EV’s. I believe a number of manufacturers are moving to cobalt free batteries for their standard range models, but most of the long range models require the higher capacity cobalt batteries at this point.
SatanLifeProTips t1_is1bqos wrote
Specifically, LFP lithium doesn’t use any. It’s becoming common in standard range cars at 80% of the energy storage of NMC lithium. It also has a longer lifespan (cycle rating).
OldFashnd t1_is1gv9f wrote
I didn’t say anything about the petrol industry. The fact that the current industry uses it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem that needs to be solved.
Surur t1_is1gzj9 wrote
It's solved already.
OldFashnd t1_is1i006 wrote
It obviously isn’t though. While non-cobalt batteries are becoming increasingly common for standard range EV batteries, almost all long range versions still use cobalt sourced from the DRC.
Surur t1_is1lfxl wrote
Just because the solution has not rolled out to everybody does not mean it's not a solved issue.
Why do you want to deprive the Congolese of profiting off their mineral wealth?
OldFashnd t1_is1nbjc wrote
> just because the solution has not rolled out to everybody does not mean it’s not a solved issue.
That’s not how solutions work. If i get stabbed in the leg but don’t have a tourniquet, my problem has not been solved because a tourniquet exists at a hospital two hours away. If we can manufacture cobalt free batteries but we aren’t doing it for one reason or another, then the problem isn’t solved.
> why do you want to deprive the Congolese of profiting off their mineral wealth?
What an utterly stupid thing to say. I don’t have a problem with the Congolese profiting off of their cobalt, I have a problem with the Congolese having children do the work. Cobalt is extremely toxic and can cause lasting damage, and these kids breathe it in all day long. That’s not a problem to you?
Surur t1_is1pfot wrote
You said:
> I don’t have a problem with the Congolese profiting off of their cobalt
yet you complained about.
> almost all long range versions still use cobalt sourced from the DRC.
You just said you wanted no cobalt from the Congo in any batteries. Cant you reason from step 1 to step 2?
Next you will be complaining about Lithium from Chile.
OldFashnd t1_is1tdjg wrote
Yeah, no problem. It’s pretty elementary, but I’ll do it for you.
>Almost all long range versions still use cobalt sourced from the DRC
The DRC currently uses child labor to mine their cobalt, so sourcing cobalt from the DRC means cobalt produced by child labor.
> I don’t have a problem with the Congolese profiting off of their cobalt
I don’t, if the Congolese stop using child labor to produce their cobalt. However, we can’t decide what the DRC does with their people and their mining practices, so the only way not to source child labor produced cobalt is to stop using it. If the Congolese decide to stop using child labor, then it’s fine. That’s really not a hard concept.
Surur t1_is1ynur wrote
Some artisanal Congolese mines use child labour. There is certification processes in place, and NMC batteries are a smaller and smaller proportion of batteries.
Maybe the whole issue is a bit more complex than you want to paint it as, and maybe you need to butt out of the issue of poorer countries trying to survive.
OldFashnd t1_is20b1k wrote
Let’s see a source for the certification process, I can’t find anything about it.
You say “some”, but of the 255,000 Congolese working in the mines, 40,000 are children. That’s a lot more than “some”.
There are companies working with the Congolese to educate and make the process more sustainable, and that’s great. But in the meantime, I’m not cool with 40,000 kids having lifelong damage done to them because of cobalt toxicity.
Surur t1_is22nlp wrote
> Let’s see a source for the certification process, I can’t find anything about it.
You obviously did not look very hard.
https://www.faircobaltalliance.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/
> But in the meantime, I’m not cool with 40,000 kids having lifelong damage done to them because of cobalt toxicity.
Better stop typing on your laptop then and hang up your phone.
And make sure you set up a standing donation to FoodAid, since Congolese need to eat too.
OldFashnd t1_is2e7hw wrote
I did look, but thanks for the source.
> The FCA will work towards a child-labour free operations by supporting ASM operators in establishing effective control and monitoring mechanisms to keep children out of the mines. But more so, we recognise that this is not the full solution; we need to look at it from a child rights perspective, not only ensuring there is no child labour in the mining sites but addressing the root causes and making sure children do not end up in other labour or exploitative situations, i.e. just moving the problem. We are therefore also investing in off-site, community programmes including efforts to prevent and remediate child labour.
Happy to hear this. Glad it’s being worked on.
Unfortunately I can’t help but have a phone and laptop to put food on the table for my kid. Although I do keep my devices as long as possible to avoid the waste and overall impact. I do understand that many families in the DRC cannot afford to stop what they’re doing. My initial approach was incorrect. I get that they need to work to survive, just like i do. I’m not blaming the Congolese and I’m not blaming the consumer that’s buying the products.
> Our first year in operation, taking into account the travel restrictions and challenges presented to us by COVID 19, has been focused on mobilising membership, fundraising and planning.
>We’ve developed a step by step improvement plan with the mine site operators to improve conditions over 3-4 years time; ultimately with the aim of achieving best practices certification.
The FCA hasn’t actually done anything yet, unfortunately. I would love to see the companies buying the cobalt to have invested directly into new infrastructure. They could hire the artisanal miners as contractors or remote employees and pay them well enough that the kids don’t have to work, and supply these mines with the resources needed to make the mining safer and more efficient. Hell, the Congolese only make like $3.50/day. That’s pennies for a company like tesla. They could pay parents that extra amount per day to cover what the kids bring in and invest in infrastructure, and come out with safe practices without changing their bottom line hardly at all. At 3.50/day and 40,000 kids, that’s ~50 mill a year. Pay that extra to the adults, invest another 100 mill in PPE and infrastructure to maintain previous levels of production. Tesla sold 1,000,000 cars in 2021, that cost spread out would be a total of 150$ difference per tesla. Thats nothing on a 40,000$ car, and that’s assuming tesla would be the only company doing it. Of course, they’d have to deal with the established mining companies to do that, but I don’t know why those mining companies wouldn’t be cooperative if it doesn’t affect their profit. They’d end up coming out of the deal with a more efficient and sustainable business, so it only makes sense.
Surur t1_is2hie6 wrote
This is about EVs.
More than half of EVs do not use cobalt.
DRC only supplies 50% of the cobalt in the world, so potentially 25% of EVs have DRC cobalt
90% of DRC cobalt are from big, non-artisinal mines without potential child labour, meaning only 2.5% of EVs have artisanal cobalt in it with potential child labour.
And you believe this is a major issue with EVs.
OldFashnd t1_is2oixw wrote
How is that related to what I just said? Any company using cobalt should be doing it, not just EV companies. I don’t care what percent of stuff has it in there, i care about the 40,000 kids that will have long term health problems because of cobalt. Any company using the cobalt should be doing work to end it, just like clothing companies should be doing the same for the labor they use offshore.
Surur t1_is2r1r1 wrote
The obligation to the citizens come from their government, but in any case, this may be educational:
Tesla’s engagement in the DRC and the Fair Cobalt Alliance (FCA)
The DRC is an important source of cobalt for Tesla batteries. We will continue supporting sourcing from the DRC provided our responsible sourcing standards are met. While Tesla does not source cobalt from Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (ASM), we recognize the importance of ASM for local livelihoods. This is why Tesla provides funding to, and sits on, the Steering Committee of the Fair Cobalt Alliance (FCA), a multi-stakeholder initiative to support the improvement of conditions in communities impacted by artisanal mining through the following activities:
• Occupational health and safety awareness raising campaign for mine workers
• First aid training for mine workers and selection of safety captains
• Distribution of protective equipment to washer women
• Creation of savings groups for mining community members paired with financial literacy training
• Development of referral system for children engaged in mining activities, including child labor notification protocol, remediation solution packages, and guidelines for case managers on remediation steps, in collaboration with the NGO, Save the Children
• Trainings related to child rights
• Electrification of five schools covering students through the distribution of solar-chargeable portable lamps
• A marketplace and football field selected for the placement of lighting poles
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
OldFashnd t1_is3212x wrote
I believe that moral obligation to help people that you’re benefitting from is existential, not based on government lines. People are people.
And again, that’s all fine and dandy, but the FCA hasn’t actually done anything yet.
Beyond that, it isn’t only artisanal mining that’s a problem
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/glencore-congo-cobalt-mining-lawsuit/45446800
Surur t1_is38pis wrote
That whole case sounded incredible shaky and this outcome is no surprise.
As to the impact of the FCA
https://www.faircobaltalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Q2-2022-Progress-Update_EN-1.jpg
But that is all by the by really. I don't see you talking about how the people who make rubber for the wheels are being looked after. The whole narrative is in bad faith.
OldFashnd t1_is39yxq wrote
Who won the lawsuit is irrelevant, the lawsuit was against the American tech companies using the cobalt. The point of my posting it was to show that child labor is not only used in the artisanal mines. From the article:
> The researchers on the case estimate that thousands of children mining cobalt – including in concessions owned by Glencore – are forced to work under hazardous conditions at risk of losing life and limb and at the expense of education.
> Some of the child miners, the class action lawsuits notes, are as young as six and have been trafficked to work on the mines. Ten of the plaintiffs in the case were severely wounded or maimed. “John Doe 3” lost his leg at a mine operated by a subsidiary of a Chinese mining company.
You don’t see me talking about rubber wheels because the topic of the thread is lithium batteries.
Surur t1_is4if1o wrote
The law suite was not won, it was dismissed, it was so ludicrous. Despite this, for some reason, you still believe their erroneous claims.
> You don’t see me talking about rubber wheels because the topic of the thread is lithium batteries.
You are talking about Cobalt child labour because you are attacking EVs. You do not really care about worker welfare.
OldFashnd t1_is5fzqz wrote
The lawsuit was dismissed because it’s obvious that the American tech companies cannot be sued for the work environment of a company in another country.
> you are talking about cobalt child labour because you are attacking EV’s. You do not really care about worker welfare.
Well that’s just patently false. I don’t have a problem with EV’s, never did. I’d buy a ford lighting if I could afford one and I wasn’t concerned about the child labor issues. I’m 100% aware of the positive impact EV’s will have in the future. My only issue is child labor, as I’ve said for this entire thread.
Edit: typo
Surur t1_is5lwff wrote
> American tech companies cannot be sued for the work environment of a company in another country.
Also called an attempted cash grab.
> My only issue is child labor, as I’ve said for this entire thread.
If that is true (which I seriously doubt), now you know it's a non-issue affecting a vanishingly small amount of batteries used by EVs. Hopefully, now you know you will never mention it again.
OldFashnd t1_is5miby wrote
God, you’re insufferable. It’s still a problem until there aren’t kids working in mines. I don’t care if it’s 2.5% of EV’s man, it’s 40,000 kids.
Surur t1_is5n6j5 wrote
This is neither the time and place to campaign against child labour, which affects much more than cobalt mining. You seem to be campaigning against EVs instead, which is why I said you are arguing in bad faith.
If you are campaigning against child labour, you can use your time more effectively elsewhere.
While you are fake crying about 40,000 children, about 4.7 million children aged 5–14 work in Congo.
E.g. in the Congo children are employed in the following areas:
Sector/Industry
- Agriculture: Farming, including in the production of manioc, peanuts, corn, plantains, potatoes, and sugarcane
- Fishing
- Industry: Working in stone quarries,† including breaking stones
- Services
- Domestic work
- Market vending and carrying heavy loads
- Categorical Worst Forms of Child Labor‡: Commercial sexual exploitation, sometimes as a result of human trafficking
- Forced labor in farming, including in the production of cocoa, fishing, domestic work, and working in stone quarries
- Forced labor in market vending and working in bakeries
- Forced labor of indigenous Baka, Aka, and Kola children in farming, including in the production of manioc, and in fishing, hunting, and domestic work
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/congo-republic
Rwanda is even worse
> ILO estimates Rwanda has 400,000 child workers. Of these, 120,000 are thought to be involved in the worst forms of child labour and 60,000 are child domestic workers.
OldFashnd t1_is5p1nz wrote
You don’t get to decide when the time and place is to campaign against anything.
It may seem like I’m campaigning against EV’s to you, but that’s not what’s happening. I don’t have a problem with EV’s, never did, never said that I did.
I’ll happily fight for those kids too. I can’t know all of the ins and outs of every child labor force in the world, I’m just one person with a life and family of my own to take care of. Just because there are other places using child labor doesn’t mean this one isn’t an issue or is somehow acceptable. What you’re saying is like saying “why doesn’t the fca work towards ending child labor in other industries?” Because their mission is the cobalt mines. What did you expect me to do, post listing every child labor force in the DRC and explain steps to fix it? You keep trying to minimize it as if it isn’t a problem at all, and somehow the fact that their are other problems in the world makes this one acceptable.
Surur t1_is5vsb7 wrote
> You keep trying to minimize it as if it isn’t a problem at all
It's an incredibly minor problem for the topic, which is Li batteries. That is my whole point. It has already been addressed, and will become even smaller in the future.
LovingLibiral1776 t1_is2aps1 wrote
Lmao you’re honestly defending child labor? This website has the most delusional people… I’ve never met anyone like you in person, I assume you are confined to your mothers basement? Hopefully she’s got a nice strong lock on the basement door, wouldn’t want a maniac like you out in society.
Surur t1_is2cdj1 wrote
You are the ones who want the Congolese to starve.
Literally taking food out of the mouths of babies.
Feel ashamed man.
LovingLibiral1776 t1_is381am wrote
Nice stamens argument. The Congolese don’t have to starve, and they don’t have to utilize child labor to keep their economy going. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Try harder troll.
Surur t1_is4i87t wrote
> The Congolese don’t have to starve, and they don’t have to utilize child labor to keep their economy going
The DRC is so rich right lol.
> The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ranks in as the poorest country in the world based on its GDP per capita over the 2009-2013 period. With DRC citizens earning on average $394.25 a year
So $33 per month.
> The Anker Living Income Reference Value for 2021 for rural Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is CDF 380,033 per month (USD 193)2 with a 95% confidence interval around it from CDF 325,801 to CDF 443,291.
So average salary $33. Living income $192.
> The Congolese don’t have to starve, and they don’t have to utilize child labor to keep their economy going
We should obviously boycott DRC Cobalt. That will definitely make them richer. I am so glad you solved poverty. #3rdWorldProblems.
pinkfootthegoose t1_is14qpf wrote
then throw out your phone and all your clothing.
ReneHigitta t1_is20lbp wrote
Nirvana fallacy
OldFashnd t1_is1ho6b wrote
If it was feasible to keep make a living in the US without a phone or survive without clothes, I would. As it stands I wear clothes for as long as possible and only replace my phone when it stops being functional.
I never said that this was a problem exclusive to EV’s or that we shouldn’t be moving in that direction, that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem that needs to be addressed.
pinkfootthegoose t1_is1itpe wrote
you sound like a concern troll
OldFashnd t1_is1l957 wrote
How is saying that children shouldn’t be working in fucking mines trolling? I don’t care what industry the mining is done for, it’s an issue. Cobalt is incredibly toxic and they’re breathing it day in and day out. Something like 40,000 kids. Move to cobalt free batteries for all batteries and it’s fine.
MilkshakeBoy78 t1_is2ae41 wrote
it's impossible for everything to be ethically produced. i think people are just tired of hearing of the bad news over and over again.
OldFashnd t1_is2ewt0 wrote
I really don’t think that it is, but the companies that are involved in that supply chain would have to put in the work to make it happen. Invest in infrastructure and PPE for the people and pay them enough that they don’t have to have kids working in dangerous positions. But corporations don’t want to do that because it affects their bottom dollar at the end of the day. We can’t be mad at the people doing the job to survive or the consumer that needs the product (i.e, a phone and computer are necessary in the west to get/hold a job most of the time), but the corporations that are profiting off if the unethical practices should be the ones to make the difference. They just won’t, unfortunately.
1live4downvotes t1_is1285h wrote
also like every battery "break through" you hear about online, odds are it will have some issue/limitation that results in it never making its way to consumers.
FusionRocketsPlease t1_is165v3 wrote
What is the mass of the vehicle that will travel this distance? If it's the same as a Tesla, then fuck this headline.
CriticalUnit t1_is0tx01 wrote
>To overcome this issue, the research team succeeded in developing an anode-free battery in a commonly-used carbonate-based liquid electrolyte by adding an ion conductive substrate. The substrate not only forms an anode protective layer but also helps minimize the bulk expansion of the anode.
So there IS an anode, just not the typical kind?
There is just a bare anode current collector without anode materials? But the substrate protects it?
A-flat_Ketone t1_is10dt8 wrote
"There is just a bare anode current collector without anode materials?"
Correct, anode free cells refer to the in-situ formation of the anode material on charge derived solely from the lithium intercalated into whatever cathode they have chosen for this particular cell. Where the anode should be prior to charging is just a current collector which has perhaps undergone some surface modification to encourage good formation of the anode material (probably lithium metal). This strategy is a means of increasing the gravimetric capacity of the cell. When you form a lithium metal anode in situ like this, you necessarily do not have excess lithium metal that is basically just sitting in the cell doing nothing but weighing it down.
[deleted] t1_is0inl4 wrote
Curious to see what sort of car and driving style/test that 630 km comes from as a model S already claims 637 km (not that you’ll ever get that, especially on highway). If it’s 630 km highway that would be excellent. Or if it’s 630km for the same pack size as the e-GMP platform that would be great.
u9Nails t1_is0k5vn wrote
It begs for details. I would love to see 630 KM in a Chevrolet Bolt.
mr_sarve t1_is0jcyt wrote
EQS claims 780km WLTP
CriticalUnit t1_is0tjd6 wrote
WLTP is always higher. EPA says EQS gets 563 km. Which is probably much closer to reality
mr_sarve t1_is0u88c wrote
The EQS 450+ (w/o) 4matic is claiming 780km wltp. https://insideevs.com/news/608205/mercedes-eqs-450-bjorn-range-tests/
CriticalUnit t1_is4kjd3 wrote
Yes WLTP and EPA aren't the same thing.
They are very different methodologies.
mr_sarve t1_is4m5ou wrote
I am aware. But I responded to a person quoting tesla model S Wltp range with EQS wltp range, so I really don't see the problem
CriticalUnit t1_is4mmib wrote
> so I really don't see the problem
If you Buy and EQS, don't expect to get WLTP numbers.
Based on real world ranges, the EPA estimates are much close to reality.
mr_sarve t1_is4n2n2 wrote
The context I replied to was another user questioning the newly developed battery tech with the argument that model S already have more range (wltp), then I responded with a model (eqs) that has an even bigger wltp range. Nothing more, I'm not buying an EQS or claiming the wltp range is correct.
CriticalUnit t1_is4sb7d wrote
Sure, but like both WLTP ranges and the range mentioned in the original article. These 'ranges' should be taken with a grain of salt.
In reality they are significantly less than WLTP numbers.
Still no cars with actual ranges over 600km
[deleted] t1_is0k96w wrote
Oh nice. Even more reason to question this number then.
_Punda t1_is13hpp wrote
"Way Less Than Posted"
mr_sarve t1_is145hy wrote
I'm sure it's different at highway speeds in the US, but I get wltp range no problem in the summer half of the year commuting to work. No I don't have an EQS
DavidMargin t1_is114po wrote
They have a massive battery though. 107kwh iirc. the car weighs 3 tonnes.
SatanLifeProTips t1_is1bxs2 wrote
Ignore idiot reporters inventing mileage claims. There is NOTHING that the battery guys claimed beyond x percentage of capacity increase. Then just assume that percentage applied to whatever car.
ctudor t1_is6pxrz wrote
from a scientific point of view that is just extrapolation or gibberish talk. energy density data of the new system is enough as relevant information.
ElephantsAreHeavy t1_is0t1go wrote
How can a battery be anode-free... there are two essential parts on a battery, the anode and the kathode. Missing one of them, is like having a magnetic monopole, it would be a nobel prize worthy discovery.
[deleted] t1_is0wacm wrote
[deleted]
ElephantsAreHeavy t1_is10hv6 wrote
There is a difference between an anode and a dielectric substance.
SGTLuxembourg t1_is1f7y3 wrote
It’s bad branding but essentially a lithium anode would be a metal film on a copper foil. As you charge the battery Li from the cathode would plate in the existing lithium which acts as a reservoir to compensate for any lost capacity due to natural aging. In an anode free configuration there is zero initial lithium, just bare copper (maybe with a coating or some other modification but the key detail is zero initial lithium on the anode. That is the primary source of gravimetric capacity increases in “anode free” cells since you can remove the weight of the lithium reservoir. This requires extremely high coulombic efficiency since there is nothing to compensate for any lost lithium.
ElephantsAreHeavy t1_is1lft1 wrote
A lithium-free anode is someting completely different from a anode-free battery.
I just wanted to point out the ridiculousness of what is written. You are absolutely correct in the explanation, but their wording is still wrong.
SGTLuxembourg t1_is28wns wrote
Yeah definitely, in the research community I am a part of we try to say “lithium-free” rather than anode-free but the later is more common in the literature. Even then it isn’t lithium free always just at assembly (and theoretically at 100% discharge if everything is behaving ideally).
Luniusem t1_is27ujw wrote
Anode-less architectures have been around for a while, it basically just means that the anode is formed in-situ during charge, but the as built battery only has a current collector onto/into which the anodic active material will go, as opposed to having an active material anode already present in the uncharged state.
funkysnave t1_is2z25u wrote
Isn't that just what is referred to as a half-cell in most literature?
Luniusem t1_is3isxc wrote
Different concepts, half-cell means your only testing half the cell, usually by means of an experimental setup where the opposite electrode is not limiting, either by just using a surplus of active material or using some standard electrode that doesn't correspond to your proposed chemistry. You can't really physically run a half cell, rather, it refers to a test setup where only one electrode is really being tested. Anode-less designs have a fully active anode once they are at non zero state of charge, they just don't have active material on the "anode" as built. Metal plating batteries are often built like this, were you just have a current collector of some other material, and the cell only goes to it's theoretical potential once you start depositing the anodic material on the current collector.
ElephantsAreHeavy t1_is4n65n wrote
It still has an anode... but you are right.
lughnasadh OP t1_is0e27f wrote
Submission Statement
This research seems quite tied to Korea's domestic battery production industry, so I hope this bodes well for its commercialization.
Other questions need to be addressed too. As this is quite a fundamental redesign of lithium-ion battery chemistry, how much lithium would this new battery use? That could have quite a significant effect on the final cost.
Poshtulio t1_is0jr7p wrote
Am I wrong when discussing the finite amount of resource available to make lithium ion battery’s?
I don’t think the problem with lithium ion is to make it better, but to develop a different battery more available with resources more available.
throwaway_12358134 t1_is0l7t9 wrote
Lithium is abundant enough on earth. Its estimated that there is about 21 million tons of lithium in the earth's crust and about 1 trillion tons of lithium in the ocean.
userino69 t1_is0o3i5 wrote
It's irrelevant how abundant an element is in the earth's crust if we don't have the ability to mine those deposits because of their extreme depth or the current unstable dictatorship residing above it. They might as well be on Mars.
throwaway_12358134 t1_is0pm3i wrote
Lithium is fairly equally distributed, unstable dictatorships are a problem for oil, not lithium. Lithium can be recycled too, gas cannot.
TheNotSoEvilEngineer t1_is0qw3z wrote
Technically... Gas is a renewable, just takes a long time to go through organic sequestration and pressure to decompose and resequence the hydrocarbons into oil.
AdorableContract0 t1_is10gi7 wrote
Stretching a definition there. Renewable is defined as less than a generation or lifetime or something.
FrattyMcBeaver2 t1_is30k6b wrote
Technically falls under the or something catagory
alasassin t1_is0y4j3 wrote
Where did you see the word renewable?
scottieducati t1_is0og2l wrote
If you make a battery more energy dense, you need fewer physical cells. This is exactly that, being more efficient with materials
chews-your-name t1_is7qd4m wrote
May I need fewer, but soon I would want to have some more
Street-Promotion-605 t1_is0li7t wrote
The total will be all kinds of batteries and supercapacitors, made from a variety of materials - each suited for the purpose they'll be used for.. it's not an all or nothing solution. As each solution develops they'll become less deadly and more environmentally sound, leading to better recycling. Much like when we were first contemplating the Internet in the 1980s, will it be fiber or wireless, ATM or Ethernet..? well, here we are and it's a mix of technologies made for their specific purpose.
Orthanon t1_is0kwld wrote
I'm going to get downvoted because you people cream yourselves over any battery tech. The article states they tested this in "half cells" which are coin cells that are flooded with extra electrolyte and lithium. Basically they tested it the most optimal conditions for batteries. You can make any chemistry work in a coin cell.
trwawy05312015 t1_is0ltul wrote
You're right, of course. As a transition metal chemist it was frustrating to see the sheer number of people flocking to battery shit just because there was a lot of money in it and there seemed to be little review/oversight.
deck_hand t1_is0ob19 wrote
I love the fact that they have come up with a way to make the battery more energy dense. It shows the ignorance of the author, however, to write that it will allow an EV to travel any certain distance on a single charge. I can build a car right now that can travel twice that on a single charge, without any new technology. Just use a bigger battery. The Aptera EV, using existing battery tech and a 40 kWh pack can travel 390 miles on a single charge. If it uses a 60 kWh battery, it can travel 600 miles on a single charge.
I wish EV reporting was better.
lunar2solar t1_is0v75r wrote
I've been reading headlines about new battery tech forever, when will we actually get it though?
sexyloser1128 t1_is1to9t wrote
I would be for banning battery articles in this sub as all of them have never panned out or were never heard again.
Luniusem t1_is2876o wrote
There are tons of chemistries/architectures in various states of commercialization, but this seem to be half-cell work which is about as far from commercialization as you can be.
____Theo____ t1_is3c91d wrote
You already got it dude 👍
noelcowardspeaksout t1_is52ebg wrote
Small improvements continually trickle through. They also have grid scale power storage Sodium Ion batteries to replace lithium now which is quite significant. Large scale testing is going on for other power storage tech too.
The big breakthrough everyone is waiting for, the solid state battery, has been slated to appear by a many car companies in 2025.
Narethii t1_is0kr30 wrote
Km on a charge isn't really that useful as a measurement, you could improve that by making a bigger battery
throwaway_12358134 t1_is0lwb0 wrote
You get diminishing returns as the battery gets heavier though.
tbets t1_is0le43 wrote
Kind of ironic how a website called “oilprice” published this lmao…
But I love hearing about advancements in EV battery technology. It’s nice seeing ranges increase and prices decrease for said range. The next 5-10 years are going to be interesting when a decent sized pool of used EVs become more available.
[deleted] t1_is1025h wrote
Damn. Yesterday I said we can make EVs work and some dude went full “2+2=4” on me trying to prove EVs will never work.
Lejeune_Dirichelet t1_is2bh1t wrote
Holy moly, what a clickbait title. It absolutely does not do justice to the work of the researchers.
Lithium-metal and anode-less batteries are nothing new, the idea has been around for decades. The concerns with this architecture have always been about poor cycle life and the high risk of battery fire, given that pure lithium is extraordinarily reactive. It's commonly thought that it could only ever be commercialised in a solid-state electrolyte battery for this reason, which is to say, anode-less batteries are nowhere near mass production. The end of this decade is the soonest we could hope to see it used in cars - but that's still a very optimistic timeline.
The research clearly focusses on the cycle life of this battery design. So why not write the article about that?
CyberDrone32 t1_is0oh0b wrote
Oh yes, battery technology #736 that we'll never hear of it again.
Internet_Responsible t1_is1bwou wrote
Can it be mass produced with realistic effort though?
MAXiMUSpsilo5280 t1_is2rt11 wrote
Anode free? A battery.needs a positive post( cathode) and a negative post ( anode ) so what’s meant by anode free? How is the circuit completed or how does a battery function with only one post ?
FuturologyBot t1_is0hy4s wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
Submission Statement
This research seems quite tied to Korea's domestic battery production industry, so I hope this bodes well for its commercialization.
Other questions need to be addressed too. As this is quite a fundamental redesign of lithium-ion battery chemistry, how much lithium would this new battery use? That could have quite a significant effect on the final cost.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y21zhn/south_korean_researchers_say_they_have_developed/is0e27f/
[deleted] t1_is0js3n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is0m2ur wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is0o4gw wrote
[removed]
ItachiUchihaSSJ t1_is0sdr9 wrote
I just watched a video like 2 days ago from techaltar where he had mentioned that anode-free lithium-ion battery is the most likely technical innovation in energy storage that we'll see near term. Gains might range from 40 to even 100 percent. Good to know it's becoming a reality.
[deleted] t1_is0x0vz wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is0zaqs wrote
[removed]
Gearsforbrains t1_is0zkr3 wrote
This is awesome. I can't wait for recharge times to match or at least be competitive with fossil fuel refill times.
[deleted] t1_is11uyc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is126fi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is12jxp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is15s2g wrote
I usually call BS, but South Korea labs and development are at different level, I recall 20 years ago when I saw a super capacitor from Nesscap and from the spec I was like this is total BS, I test it and crap I was totally amaze. I would like to have one of this batteries for testing so bad.
snowbirdnerd t1_is1cn8k wrote
Okay, so reading the article they aren't removing the anode they are are just changing how the charge at the anode is stored?
You have to have an anode to facilitate the movement of charge in the battery but what the anode is made of and how it stores charge is different in each kind of battery.
At one point of my life I studied batteries but that was a long time ago. I've clearly forgotten a lot.
_EnlightenedCentrist t1_is1dl6g wrote
Cool now produce it at scale, with margin in a sustainable way.
Phippe t1_is1jatj wrote
Have I missed something or is this simply the Tesla Model S Plaid?
[deleted] t1_is1m6k6 wrote
[removed]
ComputerSong t1_is1rz5s wrote
New batteries that will change our lives seem to be invented every day.
Haven’t seen a new mass produced battery type for 20 years, tho.
[deleted] t1_is23jh9 wrote
[removed]
ShadowMask87 t1_is23mwy wrote
Man I can't wait to have a car that can drive 1000 miles on a battery
Aderek79 t1_is2fkmq wrote
I'll hold my applause until they are mass produced at a reasonable price.
[deleted] t1_is2gth8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is2sc1g wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is33cjr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is3j9fy wrote
[removed]
djmd1 t1_is4dd4k wrote
I see a headline like this at least once every week or two, and yet years later my smart phone still can't go more than a day at most without recharging. What gives?
Urquanian t1_is57er3 wrote
Yet another bs breakthrough that will never see the light of day it's become a plague on the physics forums announcing new battery tech that never materialize.
For those of you late to the party, you have a lot of catching up to do: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1188429-Some-company-announces-groundbreaking-new-battery-again
AllWhiskeyNoHorse t1_is58036 wrote
Yeah, now I can finally consume a different energy source that I can dispose of as hazardous waste! I wonder what the dealership will charge as a disposal fee to remove damaged or dead batteries. Can the lithium-ion batteries be recycled? Absolutely, but they seldom are. In Australian, only 2-3% are recycled annually (2019) and in the UK and US around 5% are recycled. The high costs to build and run the smelters to recycle these batteries are not balanced by the benefits. These costs would have to be subsidized by new taxes or fees which result in higher costs to the end user and thus negate the total benefit of changing energy source usage habits.
https://www.epa.gov/recycle/used-lithium-ion-batteries
https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-recycling-lithium/97/i28
oldnuthammer t1_is0r4w7 wrote
The Congo is projected to run out of cobalt in around 15 years as production rates increase, so new technologies will need to be developed. For vehicles and dense urban areas the technology that facilitates fast charging or quick refueling will determine which technology moves forward...not necessarily energy density and longer mileage. either cheaper economy evs with small batteries, hybrids, evs that are able to charge at high rate, or a move to hydrogen.
WillBigly t1_is15oci wrote
Inb4 conservatives drive gas cars despite faster speeds, longer range, cheaper, more quiet, less maintenance, better for planet, no social tension
Tallonius t1_is1jjks wrote
Inb4 new electric cars are not free! Its a huge investment to get one,I would love a nice new EV,as would millions of other ass end of the market motorists like me. but the problem is , my fully paid for £500 "junker"(its actualy a very decent older car) costs me nothing other than fuel (before you whine it does 50 to the gallon and does not smoke)To exchange that for an EV i would immediately have to take on debt of over £200 a month, on top of soaring food electric and heating costs, to have a car that then wants charging , adding to the electric bill, (granted removing the fuel bill currently about £20 to £30 per week)So your fucking glib assesment that its conservatism that makes people drive ICE cars is wrong, Its MONEY or more to the point, the lack of it!
[deleted] t1_isi35z7 wrote
My first hard drive cost 200 dollars and stored 20MB. You can by a thumb drive now days for seven bucks that stores about 1600 times what that first drive cost. My point: economies of scale and improvements in materials and technology will decrease the cost of EVs. Not thousands of times, granted, but 30-40%. Also, in time, there will be EV clunkers too.
AwesomeDragon97 t1_is2qn8w wrote
Faster speeds: I haven’t heard anything about electric cars driving faster, but it doesn’t really matter since highway speed limits are way slower than the maximum speed of modern cars.
Longer range: Electric cars currently have a significantly shorter range than gas cars since batteries are less energy dense than gasoline. Either battery energy density will improve or we will switch to hydrogen instead.
Cheaper: Most electric cars are much more expensive than a gasoline car of equivalent specifications.
More quiet: You are correct on this one.
Less maintenance: There are less moving parts which usually equates to less maintenance, however the massive cost of replacing the battery every ten or so years will eliminate any advantages in this area.
Better for the planet: It depends. If the grid is using mostly renewables and nuclear then yes, but if the grid is mostly coal then it won’t be better for the planet. Plus you also have to account for the environmental issues regarding creating and disposing lithium ion batteries.
No social tension: I don’t really know exactly what you mean by this, but it electric cars won’t magically solve climate change or something.
yellowfoxx99 t1_is0p69i wrote
My concern is the environmental damage caused to produce these
Judgy__ t1_is0xeg0 wrote
Fine print for the mileage :
car chassis must be made out of two ply aluminium foil or toilet tissue.
car must be in eco mode AND driven during the summer months DOWNHILL
Baggytrousers27 t1_is1b661 wrote
Well aren't you a barrel of laughs.
Judgy__ t1_is1gnf1 wrote
I’ve got an electric car I know how it goes
Baggytrousers27 t1_is1hh63 wrote
Was it a tesla?
Judgy__ t1_is1ih63 wrote
Nope, Renault Zoe claims 224miles on a full charge but actually gets around 160-170 down to 130-ish in cold weather
Edit: oh and had a full service recently battery health at 98%
Baggytrousers27 t1_is26oke wrote
Had no idea Renault even made an electric car. Unavailable in my country due to political bs, but a cursory googling suggests you've inadvertently chosen poorly from the, still disgustingly narrow, EV market (although since resell value of EVs is astronomical maybe not) which, unfortunately, likely leaves you stuck floating in a feculent body of water without means of propulsion.
It's a shame that toymotor has been dragging its feet on their EV front (not to mention their peculiar Subaru twin thing). About the only value for money electric cars on the market at present are Nissan's latest leaf and the SUV duo from Hyundai (Kona and Ioniq 5), ignoring MG of course because wouldn't trust an EV made in china as far as it could roll off a cliff.
Point is likely moot regardless unless this leap works with LiFePO4 (cos they won't/can't go bang and set fire to your everything).
P.s just learnt thay the majority of EVs come without a spare tyre ... did yours?
Judgy__ t1_is3wmp9 wrote
Apparently mini EVs are terrible for mileage by a long way (my wife’s friend has one and is constantly saying it’s crap)
Also Nope, no spare tyre :/
Baggytrousers27 t1_is4qs2i wrote
If they say it's for the same reason as phone chargers my wrath with be as inimicable as it is ineffectual.
Iamjustpassingtime t1_is0eruo wrote
This sounds very promising, but like all things the devil is in the details.