2y ago

NASA’s incredible new solid-state battery pushes the boundaries of energy storage: ‘This could revolutionize air travel’

news.yahoo.com

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."

95 comments

Quick, let's sell this US funded tech to the Chinese or Japanese or Germans and not actually benefit from home grown research. This has happened so many times over the decades it's disgusting.
- Wouldn't this benefit everyone? Presumably the implications are far wider and more important than who makes the most profit from it.
  
  Wouldn't this benefit everyone?
  Not if capitalists have anything to say about it.
  
  Then why shouldn't "everyone" be funding it??
  Funny how the same people who (rightfully so) complain about privatizing profits but socializing risks, don't see a problem with research that will benefit everyone should maybe also be funded by everyone.
  If one group is funding that research, then you better believe they should be the ones who overwhelmingly see it's benefits.
- Many large discoveries by research in Australia in universities and CSIRO didn't get funding they needed in Australia, and the engineers and researchers simply found funding and moved to the United States. Then the US benefited from all that education and university research investment simply because the economy and startup funding was better.
  I guess you know America is on a downturn if they see the same thing happening to them.
- Quick, let’s sell this US funded tech to the Chinese or Japanese or Germans and not actually benefit from home grown research. This has happened so many times over the decades it’s disgusting.
  If that's true, why aren't the Chinese, Japanese and Germans running around with amazing futuristic technology while "we're" over here still stuck in the stone age?
  
  They manufacture it and sell it to us. The US led solar research. China organizations certainly contributed to research as well, but they're a much larger manufacturor than the US, despite the significant research advancement contribution by the US. US politicians failed to put any backing into domestic effects to manufacture solar and now it's second fiddle in an industry its research helped create. So, it's not in the stone age, because it's paying out the ears for it while other countries profit heavily.
  
  LOL have you seen where all our futuristic tech is manufactured? Why don’t you look into solar panels for a great example. Who’s making and selling them? Hm? Hint: it’s mostly not the US.
  Also, if you think life in the US is “futuristic” compared to Germany and Japan, then it’s obvious you haven’t traveled there.
- Yes that notably cheap Japanese and German labor is going to undercut Boeing.
  
  Japan has access to lots of cheap labor in Asia, and the Germans have Eastern Europe which has salaries a fraction of what Germans get.
- This is what the US does to Swedish companies, only with the added benefit of running them into the ground (I'll never forgive what they did to Saab)
  
  Oh please, who are you kidding? SAAB would have been dead at least a decade earlier if GM didn't try to save them. The only reason they lasted as long as they did was because of GM's injection of money into the company.
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.
- 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.
  
  Im curious what a regular size lithium car battery would release if you were to burn it
  
  Not just energy density but also how quickly we can refill it.
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
- power over air? 🤨
  
  power over air? 🤨
  Tesla did it*.
  _*: _terms _and _conditions _apply. _Did _not _actually _do _it.
  
  Are you asking or ? What's the situation here ?
Thanks for sharing. I struggle with feeling such dread about the climate crisis. It's very helpful to see posts with positive stories like this. Such exciting possibilities for reducing fossil fuel usage and still having regular air travel.
There seems to be yet another new battery technology that will save the world every day. And yet, they never become available to the public. I really wish we could ban them from announcing until they can mass produce the battery and sell it to the public. It is almost as bad as all those articles about the "flying car that will be available next year" articles that have been appearing in magazines since the 1950's.
- The issue is generally scalability. Lots of cool concepts but hard to mass produce profitability.
  As this is Nasa, it's subsidized, but there should be even more government money going into energy storage as that is the biggest hurdle for renewable energy.
Powering a plane with a battery sounds like a bad idea. Almost worst than EVs.
- Oh yeah, way worse than filling planes with thousands of gallons of extremely flammable jet fuel
  
  Jet fuel is one of the few remaining applications of leaded fuel.
- Why do you think EVs are a bad idea?
  
  I’m going to guess “all the precious metals in manufacturing of the EV are so much worse than my gas cars!” Nonsense that the oil industry has been shilling online with bots for years to slow adoption of EVs among specific demographics.
  Even though this myth has been debunked a hundred times, by folks like MIT, and in Reuters they showed if you live in an area that’s exclusively renewable power like I do, then I actually broke even 4ish years ago; within 3 months of owning my EV. Source: Reuters article, norway vs us ev break even point
  But hey, I’m sure that propaganda of “just buy a gas car! It’s better for the environment” will make sense eventually once they figure out how to ignore more science.
  
  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.
- Did you read the article? Solid state batteries are much safer than lithium ion batteries when damaged, so the risk of fire is quite different.
  The only other reason it’s a “bad idea” is energy density, and the article is reporting advancements there. Really, just read the article next time.
  
  Of course they didn’t. They can’t even be bothered to provide links to research that backs up the claims they’re making in this thread.

95 comments