cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62209262
You must log in or register to comment.
- adeoxymus@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
Maybe a bit irrelevant but why is the article calling it “China’s battery“? I feel like if the researchers were from any other countries academy of science, say France, the title would have simply been something like “scientists discover new ways for fireproof battery”. Maybe it’d say French scientists or so, but not simply “France’s battery”?
- Sheppa@aussie.zoneEnglish20 days
Because cool China is so totally innovative unlike the boring west! We gotta hype them up, no one else ever does cool stuff only China brand is cool.
- greyscale@lemmy.grey.oooEnglish20 days
They have been trying to murder the US and EU auto industry and dumping biblical shittons of money into battery technology. the EU and the US aren’t trying to compete.
Its still an advancement for all mankind, even if my countries leadership wont let me have one.
- SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish20 days
They have been trying to murder the US and EU auto industry and dumping biblical shittons of money into battery technology. the EU and the US aren’t trying to compete.
China invests in R&D, Trump slashed scientific research.
- greyscale@lemmy.grey.oooEnglish20 days
Not only in R&D but market development… Like, finding out what people want and selling it to them, exporting them… The Americans are trying to push pickups on europe…
20 daysActually it’s the other way around.
The internet is all about “China Bad” so calling it China Battery is a way to depreciate this obviously positive discovery.
- Sheppa@aussie.zoneEnglish20 days
“Should we just not talk about this awesome new tech?”
“No, let’s put China in front of this totally awesome thing so people will think it’s bad while we hype it up as such a great invention in the article. Oh and don’t mention working conditions, state subsidies, mineral extraction, or any of the usual anti-China talking points, that might make them think it’s not bad”
I’m sorry you live with so much gratuitous hatred in your heart and I pray you can recover some day.
How is pointing out the flaw in your logic “gratuitous hatred”? It doesn’t make any sense that the rationale for calling it “China’s battery” is to make it sound bad, when the article is clearly extolling the virtues of the battery.
Or is it the part where the other commenter brought attention to the working conditions in China? Because that’s not motivated by hatred, but rather class solidarity. How badly do you have to hate Chinese people to believe Chinese workers don’t deserve better conditions? What about ethnic minorities in China who are having their cultural heritage stripped away from them?
Is it because the government officials aren’t white, so you believe they can do no wrong? So you’ll just call any legitimate criticism of them racist? That’s like Israel calling anti-zionism anti-semitic. There’s nothing sinophobic about legitimate criticisms of the PRC.
- village604@adultswim.fanEnglish20 days
People who support China don’t seem to comprehend that shitty countries aren’t a zero sum game.
You can shit on China’s government while also shitting on the US government.
- Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish20 days
Because (most people believe) China controls its scientists with iron fist and they only research what the state wants them to research.
- Rolder@reddthat.comEnglish20 days
For me it’s because they have a tendency to… exaggerate, their research results.
“China Battery!” typically trips everyone’s “Fake News! Evil Company! Communists Killed 100 Billion People!” alarm
- HiTekRedNek@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
Maybe you aren’t old enough to remember all the “scientific breakthroughs” that came out of China in the early 2000s that were later proven to be false, completely made up, all of which were published by institutions at least partially owned by ministers in China’s government.
- CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
Classic fluff piece to make China look more innovative than they actually are. I wouldn‘t be surprised if we never heard of this tech or if they recycle the same article next year. Tech ‚journalism‘ about China is a mine field of false claims and exaggerations.
- teyrnon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish20 days
This is recycled I read about about this last year in the same kind of context on Reddit.
Separately though I have read there are hundreds of chemical combinations that produce electricity and only a handful have been researched for batteries.
- ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish20 days
These batteries are already in production cars. Have been for a while. If you don’t have access to them it’s because of your regressive protectionist government.
No no no. China is Fake News. They don’t even make cars. If they made cars, I would have seen Chinese cars driving around in America.
- ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish20 days
Regressive protectionism isn’t exactly unique to the American auto industry but yea.
Na+ batteries are really cool tech, and with a few more iterations of R&D they can potentially replace Li+ batteries, removing the need for rare earth elements that are toxic to people and the environment, dangerous to extract, and more often than not extracted by child slave labor (such as in Xinjiang and Congo).
It doesn’t matter how you feel about China, although framing Na+ as “China’s battery” is problematic for other reasons.
- CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
Well it stinks like Chinese propaganda. That much was blatantly obvious to me. It‘s just not always obvious what part they‘re lying about. So it was the part about it being Chinese in the first place. Not very creative I must say.
The particular innovation discussed in the article was developed by Chinese engineers. But that doesn’t make Na+ batteries “Chinese batteries.”
If all tech was owned by the country where it was developed, there would be a lot more “american this,” “american that.” Planes, computers, automobiles, nukes, etc.
Too much of it already is controlled by US patents, though. There needs to be more freedom to invent, develop, and iterate…
- Asetru@feddit.orgEnglish20 days
the breakthrough that makes EVs safer than ICE cars
Did Toyota write this? EVs already are much safer than ICEs, the headline reads like it’s trying to gaslight people into thinking otherwise.
- 20 days
You do realize that article neither negates or supports the above statement.
- SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish19 days
Safer cars get into less crashes. You seriously want to argue semantics?
- Soup@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
Except their weight which leads to insane amounts of energy transfer and also none of the intrastructure, like guardrails, is built to handle that much weight so low down.
The way to safer is to reduce the amount of cars.
- SolarMonkey@slrpnk.netEnglish20 days
I thought sodium batteries had considerably less energy density than conventional? Is that not a problem anymore? If that hasn’t been solved, I don’t see how this helps make EVs safer.
They indeed have less energy density, but I don’t get your point about less safety.
They work better in high and low temperatures, can be charged a lot faster and don’t degrade as fast. Sodium isn’t as reactive as Lithium, lowering the risk of fires.
- SolarMonkey@slrpnk.netEnglish20 days
My point is that if they have less energy density, they aren’t a particularity great choice for EVs, as the increased battery size to get the same capacity makes the whole thing much heavier, requiring even more battery to move it.
I guess for like short range vehicles, it might be fine, but at least around here, thats gunna be a pretty tough sell, because everything is spread out.
It can’t really make EVs safer if its not being used for them due to the drawbacks, is all.
- nucleative@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
ICE engines use a bunch of physical space for accessory components related to the engine. Li-ion powered e-cars reclaimed a ton of that space (i.e. Tesla has a frunk)
Perhaps next using a bit more space for a less dense sodium battery in exchange for a vehicle that is 0% explodable is a worthy trade (if claims are true).
- encelado748@feddit.orgEnglish20 days
Battery density is energy per kilos. The problem is not only were to put the battery, but also the added weight.
- Landless2029@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
I recall reading the same.
Sodium batteries make loads of sense for house batteries like solar storage.
The “they catch fire” argument is fucking bonkers anyway.
If there’s one thing petrol cars are famous for, it’s being filled with flammable liquids that can and do leak everywhere and combust upon collision.
You can ignore them. Same with all the disingenuous cunts who complain about wind turbines “spoiling the view” who ignore the coal and gas power stations that have littered the skyline for over a century.
- 19 days
Lithium fires are hard to contain unlike petrol fire:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/firefighters-forced-submerge-electric-car-082852772.html
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish19 days
Ah, Lemmy. You never disappoint with sharing hilariously inaccurate information in comments!
- yes_this_time@lemmy.worldEnglish19 days
ICE vehicles have far more fires. EVs are more intense, but significantly less frequent
- zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish14 days
Uhm, the statistics are flawed. Not the fire itself is the problem, but how many people are killed by it. If an ICE vehicle burns, you usually have enough time to get out. If an EV burns, good luck.
- yes_this_time@lemmy.worldEnglish13 days
I thought I was careful not to claim any stats. The only thing we know is that EV fires are less frequent but more intense.
Probably not much data out there because it’s so infrequent. You are much more likely to die from collisions I imagine.
I think Teslas cast a dark halo in this area as well. Newer vehicles, but it wouldn’t surprise me of their drivers carelessness mirrored their largest shareholder.
Its worth knowing and researching to reduce fire incidence, but combustion engines have bigger problems.
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish19 days
Cool source. Ok, I’ll bite. The number of fire deaths in Teslas alone drawfs the number of fatalities in the infamous Pinto. The number is being tracked by volunteers because there’s no data from the NFPA or others that segments by EV vs ICE, but the number of highway vehicle fire deaths has been trending sharply upwards since 2016.
- Skysurfer@slrpnk.netEnglish19 days
Tesla has sold nearly 8 million cars in total, with 3.5 million cars in 2023-2024 alone. There were 3.1 million Pintos ever produced in its 10 year run.
There are 27 fatalities linked to Pinto related fires and 83 related to Tesla fires according to your volunteer run source. The Pinto had a fatality for every 1 in 116,000 vehicles while Tesla, according to your source, has 1 in every 96,000. So the number of Tesla fire related fatalities does not “dwarf” the number of Pinto related fatalities. On top of that, a key difference is most of the Pinto fatalities were due to rear end collisions with no fault of the driver while Tesla’s are much higher performance vehicles getting involved in high energy collisions due to driver (autonomous and human) errors.
Here is a list giving a different view of fatal accidents by car model. To quote the article:
“Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue,” said Brauer. “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.”
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish19 days
Narrowing down the relevant information from your otherwise interesting comment, we can conclude that, if the sources are accurate, Teslas on average are more unsafe in terms of fire safety than the most unsafe internal combustion engine vehicle ever manufactured.
I think it’s ludicrous to dismiss those concerns as “fucking bonkers” and that we “can ignore them.” New addition to this list is that we can evidently also generalize all those EVs deaths as being “due to driver error,” so I suppose good riddance? Not really sure what to make of that, but boy do these threads sure show the best of humanity.
- yes_this_time@lemmy.worldEnglish18 days
I think Teslas shouldn’t speak for all EVs.
the company has demonstrated a very high tolerance for risk. In execution, but also they don’t seem to care about reputational risk. Other manufacturers with a larger business at stake, I would expect to handle recalls, safety in a different manner (one of the reasons they are lagging in the EV space)
So… EVs have significantly less fires than combustion engines
But EVs fires are more severe
Tesla is a mess.
EV chemistry is getting better and safer over time.
Combustion engines are largely at their limit.
- Skysurfer@slrpnk.netEnglish18 days
You have clearly made up a narrative you want to hear, that doesn’t change the statistics that clearly shows EVs are significantly less prone (~20x) to catching fire compared to internal combustion vehicles.
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish18 days
How have I made up a narrative? My premise from the start was the absurdity of dismissing the dangers of vehicle fires, and there’s data showing that a significant number of people die in EV fires. You’ve decided to argue that the deaths somehow matter less—that’s making up a narrative to justify your, frankly, ludicrous position.
I’m sure that if somebody you loved died in such an event and somebody came along telling you that you’re “an idiot” for having legitimate concerns, should be ignored and lumps you into a group of “disingenuous cunts,” you’d have a different perspective.
- bebabalula@feddit.dkEnglish19 days
EVsTeslas crash more.“Some of these accidents involved Tesla’s self-driving system.”
- glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish19 days
Do you usually post links without reading them?
Interestingly, the study attributes the problems to the drivers not the cars.
Because aside from random catastrophic failure, the vehicle doesn’t make you cash. The driver or Tesla’s “self-driving” does
- 19 days
Bad drivers and shitty “self driving” are how the cars are unsafe.
No matter how it happens if they crash more often or have worse outcomes when they do, then they’re less safe.
- 16 days
You may just be having trouble with the idea that people can reasonably and seriously see the world from a point of view other than your own.
Or it’s all a bit!
Who can say? No matter how I answer it’s not really evidence, you can draw a 2x2 decision matrix here for both answers and both possibilities. All four outcomes are plausible. Choose the answer that makes you happiest.
This from the people that gave us fireworks… traditions disappear so fast…
Sodium is absolutely less of a fire risk which is good and is made of less rare earth minerals which is also a bonus.
The major downside is the energy density. If I am not mistaken it is about half of current litium ion batteries. Which would result in a halving of range for the same weight.
On top of that, if they ever get them into production, the solid state Lithium ion batteries are not only more energy dense than current batteries, they are also safer due to the lack of flammable liquid electrolites.
In conclusion with what I know, I doubt most cars will use sodium ion batteries. I would see them as great home batteries for solar installations. And maybe batteries for farm equipement or construction vehicles although the weight might become an issue.
- SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish19 days
Sodium batteries are only 30% less energy dense, but cost half as much as lithium and work better in lower temperatures. Most cars will use sodium chemistry and the shift is already taking place.
See the “working better in lower temperatures” is what im interested in. I would love an EV if we had the infrastructure to support it, but as they are right now there is little incentive to build the infrastructure because it’s often too cold where I live and everything is so far apart.
- Teppa@lemmy.worldEnglish19 days
Your government needs to just build whole country nuclear and stop its other spending, once you’ve got cheap abundant energy then its inevitable.
- gointhefridge@lemmy.zipEnglish19 days
Am I the only one who has never heard the term “ICE” referring to Internal Combustion Engine vehicles? I hate how headlines deliberately make new acronyms or limit context to get people to click on the article.
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish18 days
It’s very old… decades, and when talking about EVs and hybrids, an obviously quick way to reference conventional gas engine vehicles. The term is just unfortunately carrying some more recent baggage.
