this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
103 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

75227 readers
3469 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
103
CATL says next-gen sodium-ion battery supports 500 km range, readies for 2026 mass production (carnewschina.com)
submitted 9 hours ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/48958993

energy density of 175 Wh/kg

CATL explained that sodium-ion batteries have slightly lower energy density than lithium-ion batteries but provide distinct advantages in low-temperature performance, carbon footprint, and safety.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 13 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

These things are a game changer. For a car, you don't need the energy density of li-ion. They don't fly, they don't get carried around by people.

They are significantly safer than lithium-ion. They don't burst into flames if the container is breached. They don't build up hydrogen bubbles. I believe they have a higher cycle lifespan. And they don't degrade when fully charged or discharged like lithium do.

They are also much more environmentally friendly to develop and cheaper to produce (which mean they will never be allowed into the US because of Elon Musk).

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 38 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I really hate how all these headlines give battery capacity as a distance, as though that was a meaningful measure or allowed comparing different technologies.

[–] Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

But it's all stupid people and marketing people understand more=better cheaper=better. I think it's why ev adoption has been so poor, questions I get asked are what's the range like? Doesn't it take forever to charge? And aren't they really expensive?

[–] MeowWeHaveAProblem@toast.ooo 3 points 5 hours ago

They do the same thing with grid storage batteries and I hate it. "Our battery lasts 20 hours!" Think it was a better unit like watts per 4 hours but media and marketing mess with it.

[–] BoloMKXXVIII@piefed.social 10 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

They are cheaper and the low temperature performance is better than LFP, but the round trip efficiency is less than LFP.

[–] lemmyng@piefed.ca 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

They also have better thermal stability, so less risk of uncontrolled fires.

[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

AFAIK, LFP thermal runaway can't start fires. NMC or other lithium chemistries can and they scare me, but LFPs are pretty damn safe. That being said, I'm still stoked for sodium chemistries to be developed. If the round trip efficiency issues can be solved, then I think it'll be a great solution for residential power storage.

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 1 points 1 hour ago

What does round trip efficiency mean here?

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 7 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Question is.... How much cheaper...

LFP is almost at the price point we could all have a freezer sized battery pack in our house, drastically changing the grid, and allowing a place for all that wind/solar to store energy.

If Sodium is a fair chunk cheaper, then it will totally be worth buying a house battery pack. Buying energy on the cheap at certain times of day, and using the battery when energy prices are high.

[–] Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 hour ago

Why wouldn't the grid do this on an industrial scale and remove any off peak discounts?

[–] DeadPixel@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Potentially 1/10th the price according to this video I stumbled on about it a couple of days ago!

https://youtu.be/Wf84NJSiAeU

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 2 points 1 hour ago

That video makes it sound exciting but I've heard Matt hypes things up more than they should be

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 hours ago

As long as the efficiency is outweighed by price, it could move us in the right direction. Hopefully we can pick up the efficiency in time. These would also be good for my future load-shifting (charge during off peak, low carbon electricity) and maybe solar system at home.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

"slightly lower" == 2/3rds, apparently. the model 3's pack is 250Wh/kg. also, 500km range in what? the only way you could fit an equal-range battery in a contemporary compact vehicle like the model 3 would be if it had almost double the density of Li-ion.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The model 3 is not a compact vehicle...it's a regular size sedan.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 5 points 8 hours ago

it is apparently D-segment, yeah. i have a C-seg car and have found the model 3 to be very similar in size, but maybe that's just a matter of the height making it look smaller.