• Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, but it’s the difference between solid state and lithium cells. There’s still a fire risk with solid state, but then there’s a fire risk with ICE. It just needs better engineering like they’ve done with current ev batteries

        • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isn’t what’s being discussed. We’re comparing cells to cells, not ICE to BEV.

            • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it contains energy, there’s probably a way to make that energy release in an uncontrolled fashion. As energy densities increase, so does the risk if that happens.

              Luckily batteries are built such that it’s actually quite hard to ignite them. As are fuel tanks for the same reason.

            • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cool. That’s not the only combustible material in a cell. And since a solid state battery only changes the electrolyte, everything else is unchanged. Meaning they are not significantly safer, because several types of liquid electrolyte aren’t flammable. Crucially, this is also a reason why solid state batteries are pointless for the foreseeable future, and only bring negatives to the table.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They are significantly safer. Current li-ion in cars have some very bad failure modes; just puncturing them can release a massive, uncontrollable fire that could potentially keep itself going while fully submerged in water. Now, even those are somewhat overblown–they’re pretty well protected in cars–but these problems aren’t universal to all lithium chemistries, much less all batteries in general.

                Yes, they can catch fire. No, you don’t need four fire trucks worth of water tanks to put them out. This matters.

                • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you’re more than a decade behind on LiB tech. Got it. Now it makes sense why you think this boondoggle is even worth discussing.

              • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Other than the massive difference in mileage and reduction in charge time? Sure

                Why do you think there are so many manufacturers trying to scale solid state? For fun?

                • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  As in solid state has lower range, lower cycle life, and higher cost. Quite an amazing hill to be attempting to defend. lmfao

                  As for “so many” manufacturers, there aren’t many. And they’ve been working on this research project for two decades. Are you also a proponent of perpetual motion generators because people “have been working on them” for so long? It’s long term R&D because you have to hedge your bets. The battery tech itself still sucks.

                  • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The potential benefits are enough for Samsung to be building a pilot line. That’s an investment, a bet, and there are reasons why:

                    Higher energy density, which means more power in a smaller size and weight.

                    Higher safety, as the solid electrolyte is non-flammable and less prone to catch fire.

                    Shorter charging times, as the solid electrolyte allows faster movement of ions.

                    A wider range of operating temperatures, as the solid electrolyte is more stable and less affected by heat or cold.

                    Longer lifespan, as the solid electrolyte reduces the degradation of the electrodes