Thread 16824932

Why isn't there a pinned thread at the top of this board about the sodium ion batteries coming?

This is literally going to revolutionize technology, energy, climate change, and shape international politics

>cheap electric cars for everybody
>solar a cheap and viable energy solution for everyone in the time that data centers are inflating energy costs for everyone
>the world won't be under the chokehold of china and their lithium stores

I can't stop thinking about sodium!

>>16824932 (OP)
Unless the density improves by 2-5 times, Na-ion is for stationary things or large vehicles. LiFePO4 is already cheap and long live.

>>16824938
lifepo4 is not a replacement for li-ion.

The value of lithium in an tesla battery pack is like $700 for a battery pack that costs over $10.000, a free supply of lithium would only reduce the cost 7%

>>16824932 (OP)
>soduium

>>16824940
Obviously, but it's a better alternative to Metal Oxide Cathodes, a battery isn't just the ion you chose for storing charge. The use of nickel and cobalt are far more problematic and expensive than Li.
Being over-fixated to the "Li" just because of the name isn't useful to make comparisons, by weight Li is only 10% of a battery...

The issue with sodium ion batteries is that you have to take all the claims with a grain of salt.

>>16824952
Sir this is not reddit

>>16825081
>he didn't catch the Carlos reference
>posts his saltiness

>>16825118
Am I?

>>16824949
NaFePO batteries are more stable and temperature tolerant than lithium batteries, they also have a lower internal resistance so they do not generate as much waste heat. Also doesn't have runaway decomposition. Meaning they are safer and can be more passively cooled.

>>16825286
>Also doesn't have runaway decomposition.
Only metal oxide cathodes have that problem, it's unrelated to Li or Na.

>>16824938
An 18650 Li-ion is 3000mAh.
Na-ion at 1300mAh is already competitive at 43% the capacity.

>>16825307
Competitive depends on the cost for the rest of the battery (electrolyte, anode, cathode) and useful life. Na will be a good secundary source to avoid the abuse of lithium as critical element but a normal car battery only has ~10 kg of elemental lithium, it really isn't a meaningful part of the cost under normal circumstances, ie when there's no geopolitical blackmailing or market cornering.

>>16824949
Now what's the extra cost of shipping and storing them?
Na-ion are inherently safer and cheaper.

>no 9v sodium ion battery
I would like to test its performance on my guitar

>>16825118
>Carlos reference
>look inside
>it's just a fucking pun

>>16825321
Sodium batteries are tolerant of extreme temperatures and don't degrade like lithium does when fully charged or discharged. They already have the longevity edge because all of the Lithium battery research and technology also applies to Sodium batteries.

>>16825348
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/14/19/1604
Not exactly (see abstract and conclusion), if you're sharing the electrolytes and using similar electrodes then you end with the same problems as LiFePO4, not all problems of Li-ion is related to Li itself. Na-ion still have to show commercial products with that capability AND without using critical elements like LiFePO4. Time and development will tell if it can differentiate enough without hitting a wall of a critical resource or being eroded by LiFePO4/a new Li chemistry. The Li ion is popular because it's energy dense and well studied.

>>16825371
> is related to
are related to*

>>16824932 (OP)
Actually dude, it's salt.

>>16825339
Found some on alibaba, not buying them though. Seems legit.

>>16824932 (OP)
>>the world won't be under the chokehold of china and their lithium stores
This will give even more fucking influence to Chinese industry dumbass. Stop posting.

>>16824932 (OP)
It's still meme tier. Very slow to charge, not great in the cold, much heavier, etc.....hopefully, it will get better, but it ain't there yet.

>>16825492
Man, you're too retarded to just shut the fuck up, 2 out of 3 wrong, dipshit.

>>16825344
I'm begging you. Please go back

>>16825324
>Na-ion are inherently safer
because they hold half as much energy which is a huge negative especially for cars where weight matters

hence why EVs weren't viable until 18650s got retardo cheap

>>16825473
Explain?

>>16825625
An NMC battery are a fire risk even with low charge and temperature. Retard.
> especially for cars where weight matters
>less than 10% heavier (that reduces range by 5%)
>more stable and longer cycle life, faster recharge because TR isn't a problem
There's a reason why 70% Tesla cars are using LiFePO4, or they were before the collapse in sales

>>16824932 (OP)
wait, ain't salt salty due to ions?

Just a coincidence that one of the largest salt mines is underneath Detroit, close to Ford headquarters.

>>16825500
Like I said, meme tier.