Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by elvircrn 487 days ago
---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant,

Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:

[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.

[ ] it will be too expensive for users.

[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.

[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.

[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.

[x] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.

[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.

[ ] its charge rate is too slow.

[ ] its materials are too toxic.

[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.

[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.

[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.

[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.

[ ] your claims are lies.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26633670

4 comments

What other boxes does it check because otherwise it’s viable for home scale uses.
this is the stupid binary-ism that is holding us back. "its no good for X, so its immediately discounted for ANY solution".

The issue plagues moving forward with other energy solutions like hydrogen.

What's hydrogen a solution for?
Power supply to remote temporary areas like construction sites. Let’s say you need 100kW for 12 hours a day for a month to the middle of nowhere. You could run new power lines and get the connected, over land you don’t own, taking months. Or you could bring in a hydrogen generator and ship in new bottles to “recharge” it.
green energy storage and transport, ammonia (fertilizer and fuel), used in the manufacture of green steel etc etc
Oh, I would have considered using hydrogen for manufacture as obviously a separate topic. Do people really reject that idea because of hydrogen's issues as energy storage?

For storage and transport, I feel like the situations where is close to the best option are extremely limited, but I guess we'll see.

absolutely they do.

I work for a company that is keen on producing green hydrogen and exploring all uses of it, and the media and talking head narrative that constantly gets set is either "See Hindenburg, so too dangerous" or "Toyota Mirai was a laughing stock failure therefor all hydrogen is a laughing stock failure"

Politics and the media seems to be stuck in this loop of "one or the other.. there is never any shades of grey". the media does it i believe because it makes for easy narrative/story telling and selling. Politics do it because it simplifies their job.

People eat it up.

I get it, being skeptical all the time is exhausting. Having to see some of the opposing views as, in part at least, correct while not being railroaded into conceding ALL of your points is a Sisyphean task.

I despair for our futures because its getting worse.

More affordable blimps?
Sulfur batteries are known to be deadly toxic when lighted on fire
Are there any battery that are non toxic if lighted on fire?
there are uses for non-portable batteries
Right, all your points may be correct or are perhaps possible.

Now would you kindly cite authoritative sources and references so we can verify your assertions.

Well, the article says;

The researchers suggest more work is required to improve the energy density.

So I'm deferring to what the researchers said about their research.