• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1032 months ago

    non-flammable end use

    Safe and stable chemistry

    Oh neat, finally a non-explody and/or unstable battery lmao

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      632 months ago

      Well, only relatively.

      In order to work batteries need to have a certain amount of instability built in, on a chemical level. Them electrons have to want to jump from one material to a more reactive one; there is literally no other way. There is no such thing as a truly “safe and stable” battery chemistry. Such a battery would be inert, and not able to hold a charge. Even carbon-zinc batteries are technically flammable. I think these guys are stretching the truth a little for the layman, or possibly for the investor.

      Lithium in current lithium-whatever cells is very reactive. Sodium on its own is extremely reactive, even moreso than lithium. Based on the minimal lookup I just did, this company appears to be using an aqueous electrolyte which makes sodium-ion cells a little safer (albeit at the cost of lower energy density, actually) but the notion that a lithium chemistry battery will burn but a sodium chemistry one “won’t” is flat out wrong. Further, shorting a battery pack of either chemistry is not likely to result in a good day.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          202 months ago

          It is definitely that. That’s kind of the point, actually. Sodium is easier to come by than lithium and does not require mining it from unstable parts of the world, nor relying on China.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 months ago

            nor relying on China

            The appeal of China is largely in the size of the labor force. Whether this tech is more or less feasible than cobalt and lithium, businesses will still want to exploit the large volume of cheap Chinese labor in order to build them.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              I’m sure they’ll want to, but that’ll be a little better than need to, i.e. relying on them for the raw materials as well.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            If you consider Australia unstable, sure, maybe for humans, the animals are fine unless you’re Steve Irwin, just dont go diving with stingrays

      • Dharma Curious
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 months ago

        You who are so wise in the ways of science, can you explain to me if this is safe/will be super dangerous if exposed to water? Doesn’t sodium, like, blow the fuck up when it comes in contact with water?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          132 months ago

          Yeah throwing a piece of sodium metal into water will cause a violent reaction. Even touching it with your finger is bad because of the moisture on your skin.

          But sodium chloride (table salt) dissolves in water easily and safely, resulting in an aqueous solution including sodium ions.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          102 months ago

          Well, metallic sodium liberates hydrogen real fast on contact with water, which I guess is tantamount to the same thing.

          Yes. But not to the same level as just dropping a brick of pure sodium in a bathtub. In a battery like this there is not pure lithium/sodium/whatever just sloshing around inside. The sodium is tied up being chemically bonded with whatever the anode and cathode materials are. Only a minority of the available sodium is actually free in the form of ions carrying the charge from cathode to anode.

          Just as with lithium-ion chemistry batteries, it is vital that the cells remain sealed from the outside because the materials inside will indeed react with air, water, and the water in the air. Exposing the innards will cause a rapid exothermic reaction, i.e. it will get very hot and optionally go off bang.

          • Dharma Curious
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I was asking because I wondered how viable this would be in boats/ships, outdoor areas, off grid cabins, et cetera. Seems like it’s basically the same thing, then, right? Like, proper battery maintenance and you’re good?

      • @Zink
        link
        English
        62 months ago

        There is no such thing as a truly “safe and stable” battery chemistry.

        Is it even possible to have energy storage of any kind that is truly safe and stable? Some are better than others, of course.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          122 months ago

          Giant springs are fucking scary. Energy is dangerous when you store a lot in one place.

          • ferret
            link
            fedilink
            English
            102 months ago

            Large flywheels are well known to be terrifying mechanical monsters, despite just being a spinning disc

          • @Zink
            link
            English
            72 months ago

            A couple decades ago I worked at a place that did power generation turbine controls.

            One thing I worked on was a redundant sync check for connecting turbines to the grid. A turbine has to be brought up to speed, about 3600rpm in the US, before being connected to the grid. The sine wave coming out of the generator needs to match the sine wave on the grid.

            If they are mismatched when the huge breaker closes, it’s not a shock or fire hazard, it’s an explosion hazard.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 months ago

            Dams are scary too, I just hope people are able to decommission them slowly when the time comes. Otherwise the deluge is going to suck.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Is it even possible to have energy storage of any kind that is truly safe and stable? Some are better than others, of course.

          considers

          Kinetic energy of a body in orbit, I suppose. Like, you want to accelerate the Moon, you get a bigger orbit. We pull energy out of it via tidal generators, and in theory, we could speed its orbit up, increase its altitude.

          I mean, it could theoretically smack into something, but it’s not gonna hit the Earth very readily, and the speed of an object that isn’t in Earth orbit, like an asteroid or something that hasn’t been captured by Earth’s gravitational field, is probably more of a factor in a collision than the speed of something that is.

          At a smaller scale, I expect that thermal energy storage can be pretty safe, as long as you keep it within bounds. Like, if you wanted to insulate a lake and crank its temperature up or down ten degrees, probably not a lot that it could do even if the insulation was penetrated. The rate of energy release is gonna be bounded by convection.

          • @Zink
            link
            English
            22 months ago

            The orbital one sounds interesting. That’s a lot of energy, and it could do a lot of damage, but it seems very stable if left untouched.

            My gut suspicion is that with something more safe/stable, you would also be dealing with a low quality/potency source and/or low efficiency.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          On a small scale yeah. The sun heats rocks and they’re able to store heat for up to an hour or so. Cats can attest to that.

          Same with large bodies of water; the ocean, lakes, pools, etc.

          • @Zink
            link
            English
            22 months ago

            I guess in my head I was implying that it was energy humans store for other humans to use at grid scale. When I said "of any kind” I guess that’s not what I meant, lol.

            So in my line of thinking, you’re right about e.g. using the sun to heat a rock. But if we use the sun to heat something for electricity generation, or we heat some medium for energy storage, I bet that will be pretty potent.

            Besides, past the small scale into the smallEST scale, it’s all just energy anyway, man. 😎

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 months ago

        the notion that a lithium chemistry battery will burn but a sodium chemistry one “won’t” is flat out wrong

        Flinging a brick of sodium into my bathtub to prove you wrong.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Doesn’t take into account the reactivity difference with the matrix either. Solid state batteries are in a vitrified matrix essentially, and glass don’t burn. Would make a lithium solid state battery likely safer than this.