Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

Tesla Battery Supplier CATL Debuts Cheaper Sodium-Ion Batteries (bloomberg.com) 78

Posted by BeauHD from the new-and-improved dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. unveiled a sodium-ion battery Thursday, a type of lower-density cell that uses cheaper raw materials than batteries made from lithium-ion metals. As well as a first generation of sodium batteries, the Ningde, Fujian-based company also launched a battery-pack solution that can integrate sodium-ion cells and lithium-ion cells into one case, compensating for the energy-density shortage of the former while preserving its advantages.

"Sodium-ion batteries have unique advantages in low-temperature performance, fast charging and environmental adaptability," CATL Chairman Zeng Yuqun said. "Moreover, they're compatible and complementary with lithium-ion batteries. Diversified technical routes are an important guarantee for the long-term development of the industry." While China's CATL is the world's biggest battery maker, supplying Telsa and selling 34.1 gigawatt hours in the first half, up 234% year-on-year for a market share of 30%, like other manufacturers it has been hit by rising raw materials costs. The price of lithium carbonate, a core ingredient in most electric vehicle batteries, has doubled this year while the price of nickel, another key metal, is at a five-month high.

Outside of their lower raw materials costs -- there are abundant sodium resources in the Earth's crust -- sodium-ion batteries have a few advantages. A long charging time won't cause battery damage and their chemical reaction is free of corrosivity. But their lower energy density tends to exclude them from powering passenger vehicles that require decent range, so they're mainly used for low-speed electric vehicles and low-end energy storage solutions. Notwithstanding, CATL said that through breakthroughs in R&D, its first-generation sodium-ion batteries have reached 160 watt-hours/kilogram, a measure of energy density of energy, and should exceed 200 Wh/kg in coming generations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Battery Supplier CATL Debuts Cheaper Sodium-Ion Batteries More

Tesla Battery Supplier CATL Debuts Cheaper Sodium-Ion Batteries

Comments Filter:

  • I can't even remember how many different stories I've seen on /. over the years about some impressive new technology invented in a lab... which then fails to ever make it to market for one reason or another. This one at least is more than just some theoretical in a lab, it's actually being sold right now.

    • Re:Finally, something you can actually buy! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Thursday July 29, 2021 @08:05PM (#61636595)

      I can't even remember how many different stories I've seen on /. over the years about some impressive new technology invented in a lab... which then fails to ever make it to market for one reason or another. This one at least is more than just some theoretical in a lab, it's actually being sold right now.

      Yeah, there have been quite a few promising technologies.

      It looks like the major obstacles for Sodium ion batteries will be the cost and the number of recharge cycles. Lithium batteries are around 3500 cycles, Sodium is something over a third of that, but seems to be increasing as they work on it. Volumetric and gravimetric energy densit is in the same ballpark - Lithium is better, and holds sway at the high end. But the batteries I use in my model planes aren't likely to be used in a car. They're balls to the wall, and in truth, not all that safe.

      Sodium ion batteries are safer than the Lithium Ion batteries.

      Anodes for Li-ion cannot be used for Na-ion, but it looks like that won't be a big issue. My prediction is that given the plentitude of Sodium, the research is going to end up making them cost effective and viable as a replacement or at least an adjunct to Li-Ion batteries once they get the recharge cycles figured out. This doesn't sound like the pie in the sky stuff like solar roadways and magick dehumidifiers that will water entire villages that seem to pop up from time to time. Looks viable.

      • I'll be curious to see charge cycle statistics on this. I am sure since this is in its infancy there will be advancements over time to the storage capacity of these cells. All tech advancements are a good thing regardless of where they come from. The biggest advantage will be if this can greatly reduce the cost to produce a battery pack which lithium is a very small part of. There is definitely a market/price option for short range commuters. If this could produce a much cheaper 200 mi range pack it wou

    • I can't even remember how many different stories I've seen on /. over the years about some impressive new technology invented in a lab... which then fails to ever make it to market for one reason or another.

      Batteries have improved dramatically by every measurable criterion. Plenty of improvements make it to market.

  • What about all the other materials they use? (Score:3)

    by robbak ( 775424 ) on Thursday July 29, 2021 @09:24PM (#61636785) Homepage
    Yes, sodium is cheaper than lithium, and much more widely available, but lithium isn't the cost driver in batteries. They just don't use that much lithium. The cobalt used is much more worrying.

    How does this battery go in reducing the use of other limited and expensive elements? I'd like to read the article, but the link just takes you to an impenetrable firewall.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by crunchygranola ( 1954152 )

      You are correct that the cost of lithium (despite business headlines about "Lithium carbonate prices jump!") is not an obstacle to massive adoption to lithium batteries. But this does undercut the "But we will run out of lithium!" FUD you see.

      But even without the sodium ion battery we will not run out lithium. At the very , very worst we will need to extract it from seawater. Despite being outnumbered by sodium ions in seawater 100,000:1 the world's desaliization plants currently pull in 34,000 tons of lith

      • But even without the sodium ion battery we will not run out lithium. At the very , very worst we will need to extract it from seawater.

        We won't run out of lithium, just lithium we'd be willing to pay for.

        Also in seawater is carbon, hydrogen, and uranium. From that we can synthesize carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels using nuclear fission power. If the use of nuclear fission causes the reader a tummyache then use whatever it was everyone planned on to power the process of lithium extraction and battery charging instead.

        If we are so desperate for materials to make batteries for EVs that we end up going through the expensive process of extrac

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by urusan ( 1755332 )

        The real economic value of sodium-ion batteries is as an alternative. When you have alternatives, it drives the cost of both down.

        This makes sense, if all we had was Li-ion, then it would be used by utility companies for mass storage and by individuals for home backup, reducing the supply of lithium available for high-end purposes like EVs, driving Li-ion prices up.

        To look at it another way, we go from just utilizing the world's lithium supply for energy storage to utilizing both the lithium and sodium supp

    • Re:What about all the other materials they use? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Friday July 30, 2021 @12:19AM (#61636975)

      impenetrable firewall.

      There ya go. [insideevs.com]

  • What they always leave out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Thursday July 29, 2021 @09:55PM (#61636827)

    I suppose a comparison of price/kWH of storage would be too much to ask for. Anybody know?

  • I suspect that we may never solve the problem of producing enough batteries to make the BEV a practical alternative for the ICEV for a majority of consumers. There's no doubt that the BEV works. From the fanaticism I see from Tesla owners it would appear that Tesla makes some very nice cars.

    What I see as an alternative is the PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle). For a BEV to be practical it would need something like a 200 to 300 mile range on a single charge, anything less than that and few people wou

    • For a BEV to be practical it would need something like a 200 to 300 mile range on a single charge, anything less than that and few people would buy it as that would make it very inconvenient for any cross country driving

      Most people don't drive across the country.

      • Most people don't drive across the country.

        Driving "cross country" does not necessarily mean coast to coast, it means city to city, as in crossing some rural areas or "country". Maybe I hang around aircraft pilots too much, to them "cross country" means your destination point is different than your departure point.

        For many people the only reason to have a car is to go where the city buses won't take them. A car that can't go nonstop from breakfast until noon is not very useful and/or convenient. Even then it should be able to refill/recharge in a

        • > For many people the only reason to have a car is to go where the city buses won't take them. A car that can't go nonstop from breakfast until noon is not very useful and/or convenient.

          The average driver in the US drives about 30 miles per day, With the average male between 34 and 54 years old driving 18,858 miles per year. [dot.gov] That's ~52 miles per day dumb average, or ~73 miles if you only count Monday-Friday.

          The median travel distance for "Long Distance Trips" (more than 50 miles) taken by car is about 20 [bts.gov]

          • Is that supposed to be an argument for the dominance of the BEV? You said nothing to address the issues of a battery supply problem.

            My argument is not that BEVs are incapable of meeting the needs of a large portion of commuters. My argument is that as BEVs gain in market the battery supply problem will get worse, and that will drive up the cost of BEVs. People will want an alternative, something that can run in all electric mode for their daily commute and yet be able to make a nonstop 3 hour drive befor

            • > Is that supposed to be an argument for the dominance of the BEV? You said nothing to address the issues of a battery supply problem.

              The post I replied to was entirely about BEV range and how PHEVs would "dominate" because BEV range isn't sufficient. You said nothing about a battery supply problem - even if that's where this thread started. Basically everything you said in the post I replied to is wrong, so that's what I addressed.

              Incidentally, there isn't really a "battery supply problem" so much as ma

              • You said nothing about a battery supply problem

                I literally started and ended my posted comments on how this is a battery supply problem, and the PHEV is how the market will respond.

                • I literally started and ended my posted comments on how this is a battery supply problem, and the PHEV is how the market will respond.

                  Which was typically incorrect of you because PHEVs still need substantial battery capacity. The market is literally already responding with mild hybrids, which deliver 70% of the benefit of a hybrid with 10% of the battery (numbers slightly invented but close enough to make the point without going off into la-la land.) PHEVs have enjoyed only mild uptake.

                  Where's the proof that you're off your nut? It's right here [bts.gov]. Hybrid sales are up, EV sales are up, PHEV sales in 2020 plummeted to HALF of their 2018 peak.

                  • I'm making a prediction, not describing current events. That means there are no current events to prove or disprove my prediction, it hasn't happened yet.

    • In a two car family you can can have a nice efficient, geek chic and possibly performant EV for running around town, plus an ICE in reserve for long trips. Compelling scenario actually, it covers many millions of households.

      • The cynics would say: you need the ICE anyway to pull your BEV home when it runs out of juice ^_^

    • The PHEV ship has sailed. As has the hydrogen fuel-cell ship. All money is now on BEV's.

      • The PHEV ship has sailed.

        The situation changed.

        As has the hydrogen fuel-cell ship.

        Hydrogen is a very difficult fuel to handle making it far from a practical solution.

        All money is now on BEV's.

        No, it's not. Even if a transatlantic electric airplane were physically possible today there would still be piles of money for low CO2 jet fuel. That's because there is a lot of money already sunk in jets and the support structures to handle the fuel they burn. If or when someone develops carbon neutral kerosene at a cost competitive with petrolrum then they not only solved the carbon emission proble

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      PHEV is the worst option. You have ICE, battery and high power electronics to maintain. PHEV is only for people who want to waste money on maintenance.

      • PHEV is the worst option. You have ICE, battery and high power electronics to maintain. PHEV is only for people who want to waste money on maintenance.

        That may be true. I expect millions of PHEVs to be sold in the future. That's because there will be many people willing to waste money on maintenance if it means no "range anxiety" and still being able to charge up at home.

        Rarely is a vehicle purchase a completely rational decision.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by teg ( 97890 )

          PHEV is the worst option. You have ICE, battery and high power electronics to maintain. PHEV is only for people who want to waste money on maintenance.

          That may be true. I expect millions of PHEVs to be sold in the future. That's because there will be many people willing to waste money on maintenance if it means no "range anxiety" and still being able to charge up at home.

          Rarely is a vehicle purchase a completely rational decision.

          In Norway - the world's most developed EV market - PHEVs were popular for a while but are decreasing in popularity. In H1 2021 [ofv.no], the hybrid market share is down to 24.4% while pure EVs now have a 57.7% market share. As the # of EVs increase, the charging infrastructure also improves making range anxiety less of an issue.

  • Lately we're seeing al sorts of battery chemistry made from plentiful materials (air-iron and now sodium) appear and being sold as "breakthroughs" even though the chemistry for them has been known for ages. The problem is their low energy density which makes them useless for most applications, except energy storage.

    Even Lithium-ion batteries' energy density is really too low for most applications and pushing it beyond its limits is causing more and more fire hazards.

    • Even Lithium-ion batteries' energy density is really too low for most applications and pushing it beyond its limits is causing more and more fire hazards.

      The energy density problem of batteries is not trivial. There is a physical limit on energy density, a limit that is an order of magnitude or two away from hydrocarbon fuels. There has been huge improvements on battery energy density for a very long time but we can't assume past gains can be extrapolated out into the future forever. If we could then at some point we get to negative mass. People should know we can't extrapolate to zero. People should know that there is a limit. What too many battery ad

    • Even Lithium-ion batteries' energy density is really too low for most applications

      [citation needed]

      They seem to be doing very well actually, I can get 8 hours out of a $300 laptop for example, EVs are now in the 200-400 miles of range... uh, range, which means that they are well-suited to most people's use. The energy density is largely irrelevant for stationary applications. So I think saying that it's too low for "most" applications is wholly unsupported.

      and pushing it beyond its limits is causing more and more fire hazards.

      No, it's causing less and less fire hazards as we move towards chemistries with less fire hazard, like LiFePo4.

    • The "breakthroughs" are not about the chemistry, they're about the developments in materials and manufacturing that enable commercially viable, at-scale production.

      =Smidge=

  • FTA:

    A long charging time won't cause battery damage

    anyone knows what that refers to? AIU, it's short charging times (high charge rates) that usually cause problems.

    • I saw that and figured they probably meant float charging it like a lead acid battery.

      • You can float charge lithiums as well. However, if you get the voltage too high, you wind up damaging the electrolyte through continuous chemical activity, so if you float you have to back off the charge voltage to be sure that's not happening.

  • To build mega-batteries for stabilize a 100% renewable energy that will be on the mark of weeks of storage, it will need a type of battery without any scarce element. Sodium seems the right replacement for lithium for ultra-large grid scale storage.
    Probably it will need also avoid other potential bottlenecks like nickel.

    We will see.

    This is a mixed-battery. Not enough, but a good step in the right direction.

    • The problems of a 100% renewable energy supply, including the storage problem, are explained on this website: http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]

      I pointed to this before and people will reply on how this is "just some dudes with a blog". What nobody even tries to do is show how the calculations they did were in error. The calculations are not in error. They show quite clearly how a 100% renewable energy electric grid is not practical. It is not because 100% renewable energy is not possible, they quite cl

      • A web is not proof of anything, specially if it is created with a clear FUD style.
        But in any case, there is a lot of serious studies showing the opposite. Or at least, possible conditions where that goal would be reached.

        Sincerely, I don't care. The reality will settle the debate. All the studies lacks from knowledge. The future is too complex and filled of unexpected changes so it's impossible to predict how it will happen. Just are useful to create scenarios to find possible bottlenecks and points for fur

        • What we know is that fossil fuels are finite and we will replace them sooner than later. And renewables and become cheaper and cheaper, so the stimulus to create solutions to use more renewable will be stronger with time.

          Nuclear power will get cheaper and cheaper too.

          And ultracheap batteries definitely will help a lot.

          But which will it help more? Renewable power? Or nuclear power? I believe nuclear power will be helped greatly by low cost energy storage. The more batteries on the grid the better the grid can manage big and slow thermal power like 3rd generation nuclear power. 4th generation nuclear like the TerraPower Natrium reactor can have thermal energy storage integrated with ti. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
          Combine thermal energy storage with fast acting Bray

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ras ( 84108 )

        Wow, roadmaptonowhere is a breathless tome isn't it? I love this bit:

        A 40-year solar refurbishment schedule would mean the recycling and replacement of 1.23 million square meters of worn-out panels, every single day, rain or shine.

        We recycle 17 million cars per year. By weight, that's twice the weight of those solar panels, per year. It doesn't seem to be a big issue, and a car is far harder to reprocess than a solar panel.

        And then there is this:

        And all of it covering 131,200 square miles (that's miles,

        • We recycle 17 million cars per year. By weight, that's twice the weight of those solar panels, per year. It doesn't seem to be a big issue, and a car is far harder to reprocess than a solar panel.

          You appear to be missing the point. The point is not that we can't have an all renewable electric grid, the point is that we won't. The labor, land, and material demands of solar and wind over nuclear fission means that people will not choose an all renewable electric supply, they will want nuclear power so that they won't have to set aside so much land and labor to energy.

          Again, it can work, but it won't happen.

          The argument against nuclear power boils down to nuclear power being a greater threat to human

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ras ( 84108 )

            Do you understand now? It is possible to go without nuclear power but that is not an option we can get an entire nation to agree to take. The reason why we will not abandon nuclear power was laid out by those "two dudes with a blog".

            No, I don't. What has happened thus far, and this is in spite of enormous pressure put coal and gas because of the land they destroy, and now climate change, is the cheapest wins. The cheapest was coal. It is now renewables and gas. So we are building new renewables and gas

            • Which brings us to the next painful point for nuclear. Batteries, wind turbines, solar - they haven't been dropping in price so much as plummeting. It's a well known effect - the more you make, the better you become at it, and so cheaper it becomes, which means more people buy it and so it goes - a virtuous self reinforcing loop, and renewables are at the start of that loop when the effects are biggest.

              That "virtuous cycle" of lowering costs will hit a limit. Wind and solar power can't get any cheaper than the materials used to make the windmills and solar collectors. The materials needed for wind and solar power is far greater than that for nuclear power, which means more room for costs from labor, regulations, and so on to make nuclear power competitive. Someone, somewhere, at some time, will figure out how to break the cycle that has been driving up the cost of nuclear power for so long. It only ha

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ras ( 84108 )

                That site is "Without Hot Air": http://www.withouthotair.com/C [withouthotair.com]... [withouthotair.com]

                Another site that stretches credulity. He's trying to argue the UK can never generate enough electricity to be completely renewable in the face of UK electricity production already being 53% renewable. It needs to be a remarkable argument.

                His argument is remarkable - in all the wrong ways. For example he claims the maximum wind could produce is only 20kWh/day per person. He says that's a problem. I'm not sure why. The

                • I stopped reading there. I presume that's indicative of the quality of information on the rest of the site. It's not worth my time. It's not worth anyone's time.

                  Then can you give sources that are worth the time to read? Something that makes the case for abandoning nuclear fission power?

                  Another site that stretches credulity. He's trying to argue the UK can never generate enough electricity to be completely renewable in the face of UK electricity production already being 53% renewable. It needs to be a remarkable argument.

                  That's not what I got from the site. Dr. MacKay did not try to argue that it was impossible to to get all the energy the UK needed from renewable energy. He was showing what it would take to make each energy source work. In the last interview he gave before his death he said that he never stated which path to take, only that if one were to take any given path what would need to b

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by ras ( 84108 )

                    You provide no evidence of your own, you only make up reasons to dismiss the evidence provided to you.

                    Now you're becoming as bad as the sites you list. I quoted lots of figures. Most of my para's introduced new ones - or did you miss the figures like total UK electricity production, EV power consumption? True, I didn't give citations for those figures, but I found them by googling for the obvious thing, then rounding in the worst way for my argument. They are drop dead easy to find, so they are wrong you

                    • I asked you to make the case for abandoning nuclear power. That requires a side by side comparison of nuclear power and the alternatives, showing that the alternatives are preferable to nuclear power. I already conceded the point on an all renewable energy supply on being possible so you going back to that is not helping. Why would any nation give up on nuclear power?

                      The answer is that no nation will give up on nuclear power, because it offers far too many benefits to walk away from.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ras ( 84108 )

                      I asked you to make the case for abandoning nuclear power.

                      You ask that as if some powerful person or government is going to decide if we use nuclear power or not, and you or I could convince them to go one way or the other. Maybe that's how it works in Russia. In capitalist economies most decisions are made by people looking to make a profit. Occasionally the government influences a particular decision - like when they made the doomed Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle in Georgia go ahead by providin

                    • You ask that as if some powerful person or government is going to decide if we use nuclear power or not, and you or I could convince them to go one way or the other.

                      No, I ask that as if I'm confused on why you are so adamant that nuclear power will not be used in the future.

                      What we have around the world is government policy holding back nuclear power. This is not a matter of cost because if that was the case then there was not be governments demanding nuclear power plants close, the plants would have closed on their own for lack of profit.

                      Nuclear is not only the most expensive, it also takes the longest to respond to load changes.

                      If nuclear power costs so much then nobody would touch it. And, batteries. The same technology used to manage the intermittent na

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ras ( 84108 )

                      No, I ask that as if I'm confused on why you are so adamant that nuclear power will not be used in the future.

                      I didn't say that. In fact, I just said the opposite - I didn't know if it had a future or not. Are you reading what I actually wrote?

                      What started this thread is your suggestion renewables wouldn't and couldn't be the dominant form of power generation - because of land use of all things, and then you offer some blog that said it had hard numbers to prove it. The "hard numbers" were just rubbish.

                    • Where are you getting this idea that the UK gets over 50% of their electricity from renewable energy? This site shows 53% natural gas in the last 24 hours, at least as I type this so when you look it may be different. That means, obviously, that natural gas is dominant.
                      https://electricityinfo.org/re... [electricityinfo.org]

                      It's easy to get 53% renewable energy when there's plenty of natural gas for when the wind does not blow. The reason why I believe that the UK will not reach 100% renewable energy supply is because the pers

        • Fun fact: roadmaptonowhere is a shitty blog pretending to be a book, written by two people who have no relevant knowledge or experience.

          "Mike Conley is a writer living in the hills of Echo Park, a stone's throw from Dodger Stadium."

          "Tim Maloney is a retired community college professor of electronics and machine control."

          =Smidge=

        • Probably MadMann/Blindseer is the main contributor anyway ^_^

      • It is just a dude with a block.
        No need to do any calculations.

        Germany already is nearly 50% renewable.
        Go figure!

Slashdot Top Deals

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Close