Technology

58092 readers

4331 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

322

New Cobalt-Free Silicon EV Battery Is The Best Thing Ever (cleantechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“This breakthrough development translates into a remarkable improvement in cell-core energy density, reaching 2,000Wh/L in batteries and approximately 1,700Wh/L in full-size EV batteries – more than double the performance of current state-of-the-art technologies,”

“Sienza’s 3D pure silicon anode has demonstrated an average gravimetric capacity of 2,941 mAh/g,” Professor Gharib said. “This means that for every gram of silicon, our batteries can store 2,941 milliampere-hours of electricity, significantly higher than the industry standard for graphite, with a gravimetric capacity of 372 mAh/g.”

Aside from completely avoiding the cobalt issue, Sienza notes that its manufacturing process does not rely on the solvent-based coating systems deployed for producing conventional lithium-ion batteries. Sienza cites one commonly used solvent in particular, N-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP).

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

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Given these ratios it sounds like it's more energy dense and less mass dense. That's impressive. Hope it is commercially viable.

In other words, I think "9 times more energy dense per gram" is probably far more laudable than "twice as energy dense per liter", especially in EV applications, where battery packs are significant weight, and weight reduces "efficiency" (obviously they are just as efficient, but it takes more energy to move the added weight. You know what I mean)

[–] Ducky@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Weight isn't as big a concern with EVs because they require more energy to accelerate, but they get more energy back when regeneratively braking. The biggest impact on EV range is aerodynamic, by a long shot. The F-150 lightning, for example, has the same efficiency with the standard and extended range batteries, even though the extended range battery is 500 lbs heavier.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Weight still contributes to tire and brake wear which causes particulate pollution, makes handling worse, and makes crashes more energetic.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I don't think that's what the op was arguing with. I think they were just saying that weight is not the first thing that needs optimized here.

[–] Ducky@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary. There are reasons to reduce EV weight, but range ain't one of them.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

230 miles on 98 kWh capacity = 0.4260 kWh per mile

300 miles on 131 kWh capacity = 0.4366 kWh per mile

Is that significant? Eh... But at the same time I wouldn't throw 500 lb weights in the back and drive around claiming it didn't impact performance.

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

But at the same time I wouldn't throw 500 lb weights in the back and drive around claiming it didn't impact performance.

Yeah, you put it in the driver's seat

Ayyyoooooooo