• Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, but it’s the difference between solid state and lithium cells. There’s still a fire risk with solid state, but then there’s a fire risk with ICE. It just needs better engineering like they’ve done with current ev batteries

      • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That isn’t what’s being discussed. We’re comparing cells to cells, not ICE to BEV.

          • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cool. That’s not the only combustible material in a cell. And since a solid state battery only changes the electrolyte, everything else is unchanged. Meaning they are not significantly safer, because several types of liquid electrolyte aren’t flammable. Crucially, this is also a reason why solid state batteries are pointless for the foreseeable future, and only bring negatives to the table.

            • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Other than the massive difference in mileage and reduction in charge time? Sure

              Why do you think there are so many manufacturers trying to scale solid state? For fun?

              • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                As in solid state has lower range, lower cycle life, and higher cost. Quite an amazing hill to be attempting to defend. lmfao

                As for “so many” manufacturers, there aren’t many. And they’ve been working on this research project for two decades. Are you also a proponent of perpetual motion generators because people “have been working on them” for so long? It’s long term R&D because you have to hedge your bets. The battery tech itself still sucks.

                • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The potential benefits are enough for Samsung to be building a pilot line. That’s an investment, a bet, and there are reasons why:

                  Higher energy density, which means more power in a smaller size and weight.

                  Higher safety, as the solid electrolyte is non-flammable and less prone to catch fire.

                  Shorter charging times, as the solid electrolyte allows faster movement of ions.

                  A wider range of operating temperatures, as the solid electrolyte is more stable and less affected by heat or cold.

                  Longer lifespan, as the solid electrolyte reduces the degradation of the electrodes

                  • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Higher energy density

                    Nobody’s demonstrated this in real life yet.

                    which means more power in a smaller size and weight.

                    You’re conflating two metrics, which doesn’t bode well for this conversation. Gravimetric and volumetric densities are different, and so far solid state batteries don’t have an advantage on either front. The hope is that they will have a gravimetric density advantage at some point, but not necessarily volumetric.

                    Higher safety

                    I’ve already explained to you that existing LiB cells use non-flammable electrolytes, so this isn’t an advantage. You’re a decade behind the state of the art.

                    Shorter charging times

                    Which again hasn’t been demonstrated by anybody in real life yet.

                    as the solid electrolyte allows faster movement of ions.

                    Intercalation is still the slowest part of the transfer, and solid electrolyte does nothing for that. What might improve that is polymer doped cells, but so far that’s been another complete disaster.

                    A wider range of operating temperatures

                    Again the electrolyte is only a part of this equation. And while it doesn’t freeze like older LiB electrolyte would, we’re so far past this problem in most applications that nobody even cares anymore.

                    Longer lifespan

                    Nope. Every demonstration so far has VASTLY shorter cycle lifetimes, which is further exacerbated by the worse gravimetric density. I’m really not sure where you do any of your research, but reading press releases is rotting your mind with marketing hype.