393
As the US sabotages the globe's fossil fuel infrastructure, in China BYD's latest Blade batteries charge from 10–97% in nine minutes, and have a range of 1,000 km (640 miles). (www.electrive.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/futurology@futurology.today
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"BYD also claims to have addressed the well-known issue of lithium iron phosphate cells losing performance in cold temperatures. After the cells were stored for 24 hours at –30 degrees Celsius and therefore completely frozen, charging from 20 to 97 per cent reportedly took just twelve minutes."

As the US sabotages the globe's fossil fuel infrastructure at the behest of Israel, China continues to build the future that will replace it. One by one, the naysayers' objections to EVs melt away. Can't do cold climates, they said - fixed. Can't cope with long journeys, they said - fixed.

As Napoleon once famously observed, 'never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake'. China must be thinking that, as the US helps hand it total dominance of the 21st century energy infrastructure.

10–97% in nine minutes: BYD presents second generation of Blade Battery

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

If you want people to trust in this,

My point is not to run PR for BYD. I'm not trying to get people to trust a corporation. I'm just shutting down FUD (that is most likely rooted in sinophobia).

Basic physics knowledge? Why would we disregard that based on the word of a corporation whose entire goal is to convince us to buy their products?

Yes, I understand the basic physics since I am an electrical engineer and work in the automotive space, and I integrate batteries into battery electric vehicles.

Regardless of your stance on warranties, corporate competition, or China..... the original claim was "Seems like these batteries push more toward the speed and capacity side."

Where is the evidence to support this claim? For what reason could anyone think that BYD's design philosophy caters to performance over durability? That is just pure fucken FUD.

This happens all too often:

  • An engineering feat is achieved
  • A layman hops into the discussion to inform everyone about the concept of engineering tradeoffs (as if that is groundbreaking)
  • The layman gives their uninformed opinion about why they think the tradeoff was ill considered

Here's the simple truth: BYD's entire battery design philosophy revolves around durability. If BYD was truly solely interested in battery density and charge speed, then why are they the primary champion of LFP batteries? If you were truly interested in performance and speed, LFP would be your last choice for battery chemistry. If anything, BYD leans more towards durability, safety, and longevity over performance - as is evidenced by their choice to make their entire design philosophy revolve around LFP. Teslas and Lucids lean towards Nickel Cobalt because Nickel Cobalt battery chemistry is fundamentally more performant than LFP batterys. THAT is "Basic Physics".

https://www.evlithium.com/Blog/lfp-vs-nmc-batteries-comparison.html

So, Who’s the Winner?

The answer isn’t black and white. Both LFP and NMC batteries have their strengths and weaknesses. LFP batteries trade off some performance for greater safety and longevity, while NMC batteries offer higher performance at the expense of some safety and lifespan.

The “winner” really depends on your specific needs. If you’re looking for high performance, especially in applications like EVs, NMC is likely your best bet. But if you prioritize longevity and safety—especially for DIY projects or energy storage—LFP batteries are the clear choice.

In the end, whether you go with LFP or NMC, it’s all about matching the battery to your needs. For most everyday uses, especially in energy storage, LFP batteries are hard to beat for their combination of durability and safety.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    So your refutation of skepticism is "you must be racist, so we should disregard this skepticism"?

    You didn't refute the physics or the claim, only showed that the company super promised they'd fix it if it went wrong.

    If your background is in engineering, why didn't you start from that instead of going into PR mode? It certainly seems more like damage control than alleviating actual concerns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •