Comment by elvircrn
2 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------
there are uses for non-portable batteries
What other boxes does it check because otherwise it’s viable for home scale uses.
Sulfur batteries are known to be deadly toxic when lighted on fire
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?
5 replies →
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/...
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.