this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023

0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

58937 readers

3476 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

NASA’s incredible new solid-state battery pushes the boundaries of energy storage: ‘This could revolutionize air travel’ (news.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

NASA’s incredible new solid-state battery pushes the boundaries of energy storage: ‘This could revolutionize air travel’::“We’re starting to approach this new frontier of battery research."

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read this a bit ago. Hopefully all this tech eventually finds it way into aircraft.

My money "hope" is actually on smaller solid state batteries than can be recharged through the air. Similar to watt up tech and ossia.

With power over air you need less battery storage and work on keeping the battery from dropping.

Also I think best case scenario would be a massive reduction in the amount of planes flying.

High speed rail would be a better solution. Planes across seas and then rail travel on land.

If trains can get within speeds of air travel then we might be getting there.

Alas will be long dead before anything happens

[–] F4nt0M@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

power over air? 🤨

[–] solstice@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never really understood why battery technology was so difficult until a friend put it in perspective for me. The only difference between a battery and a bomb is the rate they release their energy. Now I understand.

[–] zifk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is similarly true to a container of gasoline. The difficult part is we've yet to find a battery tech that comes even close to the same energy density. Gasoline has nearly 12000 Wh/kg, compared to the 200-500 mentioned in the article.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Im curious what a regular size lithium car battery would release if you were to burn it

[–] thecam@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Powering a plane with a battery sounds like a bad idea. Almost worst than EVs.

[–] TheBenCommandments@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do you think EVs are a bad idea?

[–] thecam@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are worse on the environment then gasoline cars due to the rare earth materials needed to make a EV and it is harsher on the environment when it comes to dispose a EV once they reach end of life.

And all a EV car does is demand energy from a power plant which are either using coal or natural gas for the most part. The only "green" efficient power plant option out there is nuclear but no one wants to go nuclear.

If your concered about the climate and want to take that into account when getting a new vehicle. I always tell people to buy a used vehicle since it already exists and by driving a used car, your keeping it from being in a land fill and you save money buying used. Or the other best option is to get a bike or use public transportation.

And I do not see any difference with battery powered planes. I see more planes crashing due to using a new technology. Planes have come a long way and only gotten safer with years of engineering but by changing the power source to a battery over gasoline, unexpexted problems will like arise. Essentially do not fix what is not broken.

[–] TheBenCommandments@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have a source for thinking that over the lifespan of the vehicle, that an EV is worse for the environment than a gasoline powered vehicle? Because I have multiple studies referenced in this article from the EPA stating the exact opposite.

The advantage of using an electric powertrain over any other is that the energy can be produced by any source of energy. Yes, right now, a lot of that’s coming from coal and natural gas, but even then, those power plants are WAY more efficient than the gas engines in cars and produce FAR less greenhouse gases source. Also, as countries transition from coal and gas to solar, wind, geothermal, and most critically and hopefully nuclear, the way the energy makes it from the earth to our cars can remain the same: the power grid.

Also, if everyone buys used cars, then that’ll solve the problem? Where do you think used cars come from? You think we should just keep making ICE vehicles and burning shit when we have plenty of new technologies which are being developed at breakneck pace that could actually make a huge difference in reducing emissions?

[–] thecam@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I do not have a souce that I can just copy and paste. However if I recall my source on this come from Patrick Moore who was a founder of Greenpeace or Alex Epstein. They both publish some great books on the subject of climate change.

[–] TheBenCommandments@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t give a shit what the founder of Greenpeace or someone who has published books thinks. I care about scientific studies. I’ll be here to review them if/when you care to actually contribute to this conversation with verifiable facts, rather than just things you remember.

[–] thecam@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Alrighty then, nice talking to you to? Books are a very reliabe source and their books have lots of scientific facts. Check them out sometime, espeically Patrick Moore's literature.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Patrick Moore denies climate change so he has zero credibility. Alex Epstein is a philosophy and computer science major. Neither of those people have credibility in the topic. I would suggest you find some others who have at least an inkling of credibility.

[–] thecam@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Patrick Moore has degrees and is well educated on the subject. Patrick Moore been to the arctic and to these places that claim to be suffering from climate change.

Alex Epstein is well educated on this climate stuff. He did not go to school for it but higher education is not required to understand this climate change stuff. Anyone can be self taught these days on many subjects and fields.

Just read the books when you get a chance, until them I not interested in this one-sided debate were everything needs to be from an "official" source. I been down this road before where I read peoples sources and shared mine and I am always wrong because you got to trust the science and if some questions it like me, I become labelled as a heretic to the climate change movement.

I get it though, you been told this stuff your whole life and how to always trust "official" sources. That is how many of us were raised. It is not your fault but man, the truth will set you free. I used to be worried that by the time I become adult or be in my middle years, I would inherit a earth that is uninhabitable. The amount of anxiety and depression this puts on one person is awful. However the world will be around just like it is today for a very long time. I can promise you that.