yakko comments on Solid-state battery hits 381 Wh/kg as Taiwan mass production begins

Solid-state battery hits 381 Wh/kg as Taiwan mass production begins (interestingengineering.com)

submitted 2 months ago by GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works to c/science@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 13 points 2 months ago (22 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be great for electric commercial flights?

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 18 points 2 months ago (21 children)

Every percent gain in battery weight compounds insanely for commercial flight.

It is the same problem as with rocket fuel. You have to store the energy to carry the capacity to store the energy. And that's even worse for batteries because at least the rocket gets lighter as it uses its fuel. Whereas a loaded battery is basically the same weight as a loaded one.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I realise that. I'm reading that energy densities will have to be around 800wh/kg for planes to rely entirely on battery power, but there are shorter distance planes already using battery power. With how quickly solid state batteries recharge, I don't see why planes couldn't just stop more often. It's a small price to pay for zero emission flights.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

There are many ways in which planes can be different.

Smaller plane going shorter distance at a slower speed can also mean that there are more lines and lines avoiding big hubs. If a plane goes slower but closer to your destination, you may not mind!

The cost equation changes a lot if fuel is much cheaper.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

You're right, so much about our world revolves around how cheaply we can put...fucking...smoke into the air. It's maddening, but you're right.

I don't know if oil will get cheaper though, do you think it will?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 2 points 2 months ago

By fuel, I was meaning electricity. Electricity is much cheaper than oil and I think will remain so.

parent

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

Sigh....instead of short plane flights, just take a train.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] blackberry28@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Unfortunately, train tickets are often more expensive than plane tickets. So you pay more and it takes longer.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Shadow_Glider@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

This sounds absolutely insane to me, which country do you live in?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] blackberry28@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Germany lol.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Shadow_Glider@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago

Ah, it appears you got Deutsche Bahned.

parent

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (11 children)

For this reason, green hydrogen is likely the best bet for air transport

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (10 children)

Biofuel is a possibility too.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago* (9 children)

But that has the same emissions issue as the current fuel

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

That's a whole different debate. I tend to agree that they are less ideal, that their proponents say, but they are actually renewable. They don't add durably CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil sources. It is a very different thing. The CO2 they emit is part of a cycle. Ideally, that's also a type of emission that we cut, but it is possible to include them in a sustainable society.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Biofuel is a dead-end technology. Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel, while also avoiding wasting all the extra nutrients (phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen - some of which are scarce) needed for the plant to grow that give nothing in terms of energy storage and must be recaptured.

A bunch of solar panels and some direct air -> methanol plants uses far less land than corn fields for bioethanol, while also providing easy avenues to switch energy from feeding the grid to filling the tanks depending on conditions.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago

Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel

I have a very hard time believing it to be true, but I am always opened to an unexpected good news. Do you have a specific tech/source in mind for that claim?

parent

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

CO2 is not the only emission and pollution in the high atmosphere is even more damaging than on the ground.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

Which pollution are you thinking of?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

Well incomplete combustion, which is unavoidable, produces carbon monoxide, VOCs, soot, and unburned fuel. All which would be dumped into the high atmosphere.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

I know these are bad for human health, but are they bad for the environment in these quantities and at this altitude?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Unburned fuel is an order of magnitude worse for the atmosphere than CO2. Plus you think only humans are poisoned by these things?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago

Unburned fuel is also an order of magnitude less in terms of volume than burned fuel. It is also something that's solvable by better combustion and optimized engines.

Humans are 'poisoned' by these things in cities where they live close to thousands of vehicles that pass a few meters away. Inside sometimes a city where this gas accumulates.

And they are not poisoned per se. They lose years of life expectancy and they get preventable diseases. An animal population regulated by predation probably does not notice these differences in life expectancy.

Don't get me wrong, that's still a problem, but that's not an ecological and climatic problem and something that can be addressed after we've finished our transition out of the fossil fuel.

parent