John Battery himself just BTFO the fossil fuel industry forever and nobody cares. Once Elon Musk gets hits hands on this his cars will out compete gas cars, and homes will be battery powered cheaply.
>solid state
>3x the energy density
>works in cold temperatures
>cheap
>recharges in minutes rather than hours
>lasts way longer
news.utexas.edu
Other urls found in this thread:
qz.com
webcache.googleusercontent.com
reddit.com
youtube.com
news.ycombinator.com
engr.utexas.edu
docs.wind-watch.org
twitter.com
>muh prototype
It could very well be the EMdrive of batteries:
qz.com
So like you know how metal in a battery is supposed to 'corrode'? Well in this battery it doesn't.
It doesn't look fantastically unbelievable or like it's violating thermodynamics to me. I'm reading the paper (10.1039/C6EE02888H), and it looks like ordinary battery chemistry: when discharging, alkali metal ions travel through an electrolyte to form an ionic compound with sulfur made conductive by carbon, when charging the alkali metal ions travel back the other way to plate as the pure element onto the alkali metal electrode.
>Goodenough’s battery has pure metallic lithium or sodium on both sides. Therefore, the voltage should be zero, with no energy produced
No it doesn't! That's fucking stupid!
This is why science reporters can't be trusted to paraphrase.
I'll wait for what the peer review process shows before accepting a Quartz article about a bunch of scientists who are skeptical because they don't get it.
Oh, look. It's the monthly battery breakthrough that will revolutionize the whole energy industry.
The guy who put together the lithium ion battery is far from those green energy memers.
This one's a bigger deal and more credible than usual.
For one thing, it's coming from the guy who figured out the key bit to making li-ion batteries practical, for another, it's the solution of a longstanding problem: how to make the anode out solid alkali metal (rather than having something to hold alkali metal ions, which adds a lot of weight).
It's a solid multiple of energy density, with a lifespan increase, cost decrease (including the major option of using sodium for less mass-sensitive applications), and hazard reduction. This is going to be big.
Hey, ones gotta stick eventually
This.
Sage.
kek
We have crap like this every month:
>This guy has shown that Einstein is wrong
>Magic battery that will solve our energy problems
>Immortality achieved
>Robots are now self aware
>window xp
what a pretentious faggot
>If a battery cell is charged too quickly, it can cause dendrites or “metal whiskers” to form and cross through the liquid electrolytes, causing a short circuit that can lead to explosions and fires.
Article is interesting, but on another topic, does this mean "lightning chargers" are bad for longevity of cellphone batteries?
I love these pieces (
> Yeah basically you walked around with
> motherfucker bomb of battery in ur pocket
> But now Mr Goodbye or wtf his name
> invented a new one because
> the ones you have now
> are bad
> and will kill you with whiskers
Well, there has been some chinese faggots who got their ears torn off by faulty li-ion exploding in their cellphones. Also the in the drone community some have lost more than a finger with lipo
This battery will be revolutionary but the gains will be felt in consumer devices ie phones and radios not cars. EV cars make more sense if they're operating from rectennas or power strips embedded within the road (kind of like a disneyland ride).
It's probably vaporware. I see news stories about radical breakthroughs in battery tech like twice a year. They're always vaporware. Let me know when the full specs are published, and whether it uses abundant materials, and let me know the energy costs for its manufacture, the storage capacity, and the lifetime in years and in cycles, for a mass produced commercial unit, and not some ridiculously lab demo.
> interuniversal teichmuller theory begin accepted.
> some guy solved riemann hypothesis
This son of a gun...
This paper...
How the fuck did he fit all those electro-
>see materials
fuck....we goin sci fi now...
>futurist popsci clickbait garbage articles
>John Goodenough's work backed by a university
Totally the same.
This isn't being picked up on by the futurists yet either. They're onto some solar powered building tethered by an asteroid to fly around the earth.
God fucking damn, I almost removed it from my memory
This isn't futurist wank material. It's just another step forward for an established technology that everyone expected would improve. It's like the articles that come out describing one of the promising options for Intel to use in their next generation fab.
Maybe some of you don't remember the world before lithium-ion batteries were everyday tech, and feel like the technology has been stagnant for a while, but when I was a kid, practical rechargeables for consumers were pretty much limited to lead-acid, and of course they weren't suitable for most portable devices. We bought alkaline batteries constantly for things like flashlights, portable radios, and electronic games.
Then in the 80s, nickel cadmium (NiCad) batteries got good enough for daily use and replaced alkaline and lead-acid batteries for most portable, power-hungry devices. Portable electric drills started to become popular. Cellular phones emerged. Gaming devices started to have integrated batteries rather than AA or AAA cell holders.
In the 90s, lithium ion and nickel metal hydride both emerged as viable consumer products, and started to replace NiCad. Li-ion batteries have more than doubled in capacity since their commercial popularization, but lately progress has been in the direction of reducing costs rather than improving capacity.
Over the span of 26 years ago until about 10 years ago, we got about a 5X improvement, with other advantages. Well, here comes another 5X improvement, with other advantages.
>It's probably vaporware.
Why don't you fuck off? You never actually understand the things you're talking about. You're always trying to talk like some expert, and never do your homework.
>whether it uses abundant materials
This shows you haven't bothered to even glance over the available information.
x the energy density
That's neat but not nearly enough considering current batteries have an energy density two orders of magnitude worse than diesel fuel.
But will it get me power in the touge?
>two orders of magnitude worse than diesel fuel.
Good Li-ion batteries are only about 50 times worse than diesel fuel. "Two orders of magnitude" suggests that it's at least a hundred times worse. Furthermore, to convert diesel fuel to mechanical or electrical power takes an inefficient (and heavy) heat engine. Typically, a vehicle-sized engine gets an average efficiency around 37%, while gasoline is lower. So in practical terms, as energy storage alone, diesel's only about 20 times, and gasoline is around 10-15 times.
When you factor the mass of the engine, the picture is much worse. A typical car holds maybe 50 kg of gas, but has a 150 kg engine, whereas electric motors are much lighter. Effectively, the energy density is four times worse due to the required conversion equipment. So all else being equal, an electric car built at the same mass with today's technology should have about a quarter of the highway range, and you'd need to add about 600 kg of batteries to bring it up to equal range.
These glass batteries may be 5-10 times better than Li-ion. Cars using them may be lighter at the same range, with no radical redesign. You'll be able to simply stick the batteries where the engine and fuel tanks are, and even do after-market conversions. They're also supposed to be fast-charging, long-lived, and cheap.
Anyway oil-based liquid fuel's energy density is a lot better than it needs to be for most applications, and it's a lot cheaper to transport energy over the electric grid than to have separate distribution for liquid fuels.
So how fucked is Tesla now?
By building the "Gigafactory" they're in the middle of a massive commitment to lithium-ion battery technology, and with the Model 3, to building a mass-production model around Li-ion's limitations.
With a dramatically better battery technology, they lose their market advantage, except for self-driving car tech (which, frankly, I don't believe is going to be mature any time soon).
Yep, this is the real takeaway
Can anyone shine some light on how different the production processes of li-ion and solid state batteries are? Will musk be able to cheaply repurpose his factories?
>> materials
Are hardly sci-fi. It's not graphene/pixie dust
Because this new battery doesn't use fucking pixie dust, Tesla could probably modify their gigafactory to build it
The major difference is the solid electrolyte. The big advantage is they could get away from the nickel, manganese, and cobalt oxide chemistry to more abundant materials. The powerwalls use these materials and liquid cooling to stay at a constant temperature for maximum efficiency, and they could just scrap it potentially to produce a battery that powers a home for much less than $3,000 and increase profits. Tesla is the real winner here.
Can somebody tldr to me what the scientific community thinks about this?
Real or hype?
>Because this new battery doesn't use fucking pixie dust, Tesla could probably modify their gigafactory to build it
Certainly they can modify the gigafactory to build it, but so can anyone else modify other factories to build it. They put in this big investment in Li-ion production to get an advantage in the industry.
The construction isn't likely to be very similar to Li-ion, since this needs mechanical flexibility and some pressure due to volume changes (along one axis) with charging and discharging. Also, with the reduced hazard of runaway discharge, it makes less sense to make many small cells.
In other words, if they want to build glass batteries, the gigafactory isn't going to be much more than floor space.
The batteries tesla is making are a rolled up membranes of secret sauce in metal tubes. The battery Goodenough made is pretty much the same thing, just not rolled up and using a different secret sauce.
Only thing that's crazy is the need for alkali metal, this might mean the equipment for rolling up membranes into tubes might need to be modified. IE to use an inert gas atmosphere.
But, all the stuff for making the standard 18650 shell probably won't change by much. Factories that already make non-rechargeable lithium batteries are probably better suited to this.
>> volume changes
Are a problem with traditional Li-ion batteries
Of course there really needs to be a repetition of these results before these batteries can be mass produced.
>The battery Goodenough made is pretty much the same thing, just not rolled up and using a different secret sauce.
Sure, pretty much the same thing, just not rolled up and with no sauce.
Li-ion batteries use a flammable liquid electrolyte. This is a solid electrolyte battery.
>all the stuff for making the standard 18650 shell
In the first place, it's doubtful that it'll be made in this form factor. It's not well suited to it. In the second place, there's no reason to assemble large glass batteries from a huge number of tiny cells to slow fires down because it's not prone to catastrophic runaway reactions. Probably, they'll be more like a stack of sheets. Much simpler and cheaper to manufacture.
>> volume changes
>Are a problem with traditional Li-ion batteries
Not the same kind of problem.
>there really needs to be a repetition of these results
There's not really doubt that there will be.
>fit all those electro-
>fit
>electrons
Top kek
at least read the paper or just go back to
It was Dr. Goodenough who decided it was okay for everyone to have bombs in their pockets in the first place.
Well in their test batteries the solid electrolyte was embedded in a paper/glass fiber membrane.
It would be surprising if they didn't use the 18650 format.
>> volume change
If it is significant it could make these batteries impractical.
Grad student here. I do research synthesizing and characterizing electrochemical materials (electrolytes and cathode materials) and testing them in coin and pouch cells.
This paper is huge. People, including myself, have been trying to get solid state to work for a while now. A couple major problems are a totally shit ionic conductivity (due to being in the solid state) and a poor electrolyte/electrode interface (due again to non-fluid materials. Crash course in solid state electrolytes. A high end ionic conductivity is in the region of 10^-4 or 10^-3 mS/cm. If I remember correctly, goodenough's material is pushing 10^-2 to 10^-1. That's a solid material with an ionic conductivity that approaches liquids. Fucking mindblowing. Additionally, the poor interface I mentioned? His material basically melds together the electrolyte/electrode so there is is a pristine interface for ions to transfer. I literally don't know how the dude does it. He's like 94 and one of his last gifts to our field was to push solid state batteries (and make my field more relevent). Fucking stoked.
>it's vapor ware
only people that can't appreciate the stride he made will say this. You don't just snap your fingers and commercialize an entirely new battery chemistry overnight. That takes decades. You don't understand how research works if you think otherwise.
praise kek
this is truly the golden timeline
>It would be surprising if they didn't use the 18650 format.
There's not really a good reason to. It doesn't lend itself to cylindrical shapes. They'd probably do it as a vertical stack and it would be pretty wasteful and expensive.
>If it is significant it could make these batteries impractical.
Well, like the guy says, it's one-dimensional so they just need to incorporate a spring or something to accommodate the changing thickness.
Well if they have to include a spring doesn't that make it difficult to make things like phone batteries? IE stuff that has a bunch of membranes stacked on top of each other with a length:thickness ratio much greater than 1?
The paper came out a while ago. Has anybody been able to reproduce the results?
>professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering
>COCKrell school of ENGINEERING
Well, these batteries will not be mainstream within the next 10 years, and that's probably more than the life span of the Tesla 3 anyways. So Tesla could easily equip the next generation of cars with the new batteries. How easily the gigafactory can change its production to the new batteries though is another question.
>if they have to include a spring doesn't that make it difficult to make things like phone batteries?
Maybe, but it doesn't have to be a coil spring. Think of the clips that hold watch batteries in.
I think it'll be better suited to large batteries, but also that it's so fundamentally superior to Li-ion that it'll replace small batteries as well.
Modyfying a machine even if it is relatively simple costs a fuckton, modyfying it a lot is either impossible or so expensive that it is cheaper to just build one from scratch. The gigafactory is definetely a failed investment if those batteries will actually work. If it is a failure large enough to sink Tesla though i dont know.
>these batteries will not be mainstream within the next 10 years
why not? demand for them is huge and they're easy to make
I'd say 5 years
Maybe if they release a working prototype this year, but AFAIK they are not that far yet.
I think there will be a huge race to develop these and get them to market.
The lab prototype wasn't some shitty barely-working thing, but lasted through a huge number of cycles, and it didn't sound difficult to manufacture. There are no complications like gas production or flammable electrolyte.
Electric car companies are going to be knocking down walls to get at this battery and compete with Tesla. Might be mainstream by 2020.
>Electric car companies
With this amount of improvement, converting existing models to electric will be trivial. I think range-extended electric will become quite common (electric with a small generator which burns conventional fuel for when access to a charger isn't available).
Isn't it true that chemists work on battery research not physicists? This guy has a b.s in math and a phd in physics, yet he is working in battery research?
Electrons are fermions. They can't all fit in the same space.
The paper came out at most 2 months ago if I remember correctly. There hasn't been enough time to reproduce results. I'm assuming when other groups form their own ideas based on goodenoughs work that's when you will know whether or not it's "reproducible".
However, I really don't think that is an issue here. He is not just a big name in battery chemistry and materials, he is THE name. Publishing garbage research at the end of his career and life is not what this guy is looking to do. Regardless, as SS batteries move forward yes that's when you will get your answer.
>Over the span of 26 years ago until about 10 years ago, we got about a 5X improvement, with other advantages. Well, here comes another 5X improvement, with other advantages.
A 5x improvement in what? Money costs? Energy density? EROEI?
You're not getting a 5x improvement on energy density. That's one of the primary benefits of Li batteries: weight, and that depends on the atomic weights of the chemicals involved. We're at Li, which is already quite low on the periodic table. There's theoretical room for improvement by replacing the other elements, and there's room for replacement for increasing the charge per atom (which right now is about 1/4 efficiency in terms of actual energy stored vs theoretical max energy stored).
5x less money costs? Maybe.
5x better EROEI? Doubt it. This is what you need to improve for it to be relevant when it comes to discussions of replacing coal. It's highly unlikely that you're going to reduce energy manufacture costs. Maybe they figure out some way to increase life (shelf life and charge-cycle life). Still, you would need at least roughly a 100x improvement for it to be enough to actually combine with solar and wind to replace coal.
>Why don't you fuck off? You never actually understand the things you're talking about. You're always trying to talk like some expert, and never do your homework.
If you want to get specific, then we can talk. Otherwise, fuck you too.
>This shows you haven't bothered to even glance over the available information.
I believe I said exactly that already.
>I have a peer reviewed paper.
>Therefore it's true.
Right. That's not how actual science works.
I see... Based on some sources I've found, (need to confirm, the paper is claiming a 3x better energy density in terms of /volume/, not mass, compared to lithium ion. In terms of mass, it's actually 2.5x heavier than the same storage lithium ion battery.
I did not confirm this. Please take with grain of salt. However, it makes a shitload of sense given what I wrote above.
PS: If true, this means that it's not replacing conventional lithium ion batteries in cars, because what matters there is weight, not volume.
energy density always refers to weight you fucking dipshit.
For batteries, this is generally true. That's what makes this so unusual. Of course, given it's about a "breakthrough battery tech", I'm not surprised that marketing is in full force.
Ok, let me see if I can find the paper itself or some other reliable source.
70 KWh Tesla Model S battery pack. Estimated to have 63 kg of lithium (and a total mass of 453 kg). 70 KWh / 63 kg = 1.11 Wh / g.
A typical 18650 cell in a typical laptop has 8 g lithium and 100 Wh storage. 12.5 Wh / g of Li metal.
Google was kind enough to provide a cache of the pdf in question, even though it's behind a paywall.
> The energy density of the full discharge was 10.5 W h gA1 (Li metal); but for the reversible voltage range Vdis > 2.34 V, it was 8.5 W h gA1 (Li metal).
Wow. It's about the same. Who would have guessed. Oh wait, I would have.
Unfortunately, this gets me no closer to an actual answer, because most of the mass of an actual battery is the stuff other than the lithium atoms. A typical 18650 cell has a total mass of about 45g, and therefore the lithium fraction is 8g / 45g = 17.7%.
I will say that the paper several times uses the phrase "high volumetric energy density". This is lending some pretty strong credence to my (reddit) source which says that this battery is actually heavier than a conventional lithium ion battery of the same energy storage capacity.
In particular, glass is much denser than than the usual electrolytes used for conventional lithium ion batteries, and so I'm still not surprised that it manages to be smaller by volume than the same li ion battery of the same energy capacity, but also much heavier.
Unfortunately, I don't see anything from the google cache of this paper that seems to clearly settle this issue. Maybe I'm incompetent at reading. I'll try again.
Also, let me poke around a little more elsewhere online, and see if I can find some proper source.
Wasn't the first big gaming device with an integrated battery the GBA SP though? That's nowhere near the 80s.
You forgot graphene making some gigantic advancement
Correction: My reddit source suggests that it's slightly better energy capacity / mass, like 20% better, but not 3x better.
I will say this. If they can get this up to snuff, it might solve the EROEI problem and ESOI problem of energy storage. It seems one of the main benefits of a solid electrolyte is that it prevents dendrites from forming and shorting out the battery, which might drastically increase battery life (shelf life and cycle life), which would drastically increase ESOI. I'm pretty impressed there.
But from some of the stuff that I've been reading, this is not some radically new thing. Solid state electrolytes have been known. This is just another step of improvement. How big of an improvement? I don't know atm. I will say that I'm not too excited.
How fucked?
Incalculably so.
Wait...never mind.
If Diesel = 2 times current battery
and Battery = three times current battery
Then 2 Divided by 3 = How fucked tesla is right now.
They are exactly 66.666 etc percent fucked.
Please see my posts in this thread. It's likely that "3x energy density" is a fuck-up by illiterate science news reporters, and it's actually probably closer to 20% higher energy density (by mass).
Even if it was 3 times heavier it will blow li ion out of the water because it charges in seconds, works perfectly even with -20 degrees celsius and has a minimum of 1200 charges without loss of capacity.
It might. Depends on cost per energy capacity too. Depends on how well a commercial version works too.
Please see my earlier correction. It seems that it is about 20% more energy capacity for the same mass.
One nit: It won't charge in seconds. Probably. Charging a battery loses about 10% to heat, and I imagine that this will be about the same. If you calculate how much heat that actually is, then it is "not very good" (tm). You cannot charge it that fast without melting your battery / car, or setting something on fire. Even if your battery won't catch on fire, the stuff around it probably will.
t. pretentious faggot
Yep
alt+0153
>Goodenough
eh, it's not like he would purposedly publish garbage research
I'm just skeptical of exceptional results and everyone here is just appealing to authority
>energy density always refers to weight
No, that's called "specific energy". Energy density is energy per unit volume, although it's often misused as a synonym for specific energy.
>Based on some sources I've found, (need to confirm, the paper is claiming a 3x better energy density in terms of /volume/, not mass
God damn it man, the paper isn't hard to get your hands on.
You can see he's using the term "energy density" to refer to specific energy.
>> The energy density of the full discharge was 10.5 W h gA1 (Li metal); but for the reversible voltage range Vdis > 2.34 V, it was 8.5 W h gA1 (Li metal).
>Wow. It's about the same. Who would have guessed. Oh wait, I would have.
That's a measure of energy density, so it's watt-hours per gram of battery for the lithium metal version, not watt-hours per gram of lithium. They specify that because this technology also works with sodium.
It gets more bang per gram of lithium because it's transferring from the elemental form to bond with elemental sulfur, rather than transferring from intercalated storage to bond with oxygen that's already in an oxide.
You really are just too fucking stupid to contribute productively to these discussions.
Damn that is a rough last name.
>You're not getting a 5x improvement on energy density. That's one of the primary benefits of Li batteries: weight, and that depends on the atomic weights of the chemicals involved. We're at Li, which is already quite low on the periodic table.
You are far too simple-minded and ignorant to discuss this with.
Li-ion batteries are nowhere near the hard physical limits of battery capacity. The reason we use Li-ion batteries and not Na-ion batteries isn't that they're lighter, but that they're easier to make work, due to more specific chemical properties. There's all sorts of other mass in Li-ion batteries that doesn't directly contribute to the energy stored, but is necessary for the battery to work: the lithium ions must be stored in something at the negative electrode, and the oxygen or lithium-containing oxide must be stored in something at the positive electrode. Then the battery must be durably packaged due to its flammable electrolyte, gas generation, and thermal runaway potential.
>5x better EROEI?
How can you possibly think you belong in a discussion about this stuff when you say stupid shit like this? If you got a 5x improvement on EROEI from a reasonably efficient rechargeable battery, it would be a perpetual motion machine.
You demonstrate over and over that you don't understand the concept of EROEI or its significance, and you just won't stop talking about it, you goddamn trash.
But anyway, the fact that this battery technology works for sodium and requires no scarce elements, in addition to the other advantages, means that it's going to make grid batteries and house batteries a lot cheaper, both in dollars and in energy spent per unit capacity.
You're making the same mistake most people in this thread are making because they don't know what they are talking about. The goal of solid state batteries (currently) is to make one work as good or better than a Li ion battery and allow for the use of elemental lithium instead of a graphite/LiCoO2 battery or whatever you are comparing it to. It's also to make it safer. Solid state so you don't have reactive lithium metal next to an organic combustible electrolyte.
The issue has been two things. What electrolyte to use, it's conductivity, and the interface between electrode and electrolyte. It doesn't matter if it's the same or even worse battery than li ion. It's pretty much the first of its kind
>My reddit source
KYS
>Look, I found another idiot who agrees with me, on the site where I belong:
>reddit.com
This guy has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about, and since he makes no references or argument for his claim, I can't imagine what could be going on in your head that you think it's appropriate to use him as a source.
It's true that solid-electrolyte batteries aren't new. It's false that this is comparable in performance to other solid-electrolyte batteries, or "just a little blip of progress".
This thing too:
>in this particular battery, the chemistry breaks down very strongly after it reaches the end of life.
How the fuck is he reaching that conclusion? There's nothing in the paper to suggest this. Rather, they cycled it a very large number of times with no degradation. 1200 is a floor on the kind of cycle life that might be achieved, not a ceiling.
Most likely, he's confusedly referring to the paper discussing how, if the battery is completely discharged, it can't be recharged. This is because the lithium at the negative electrode is entirely consumed. It might be a fixable issue, if another backing material can be found which makes good contact with the glass electrolyte, so lithium can plate on it. They just used stainless steel in the prototype. At any rate, the need for circuitry to prevent overdepletion can be avoided by optimizing the positive electrode, so it loses voltage before the lithium is consumed. They had too much available positive terminal sulfur area in the prototype.
This.
He did it once already.
So can that battery generate plastic or hydrocarbon based fuel?
he's also 94.
>John Goodenough
>Goodenough
I know other people contributed a lot to this, but I'm still hoping that the name "Goodenough Battery" sticks, because it really is.
Also:
>John B. Goodenough
>Johnny B. Goodenough
So, I read the paper again, and I don't see it specifically make any claim like "3x better energy density than conventional Li batteries". I also don't see numbers regarding the actual energy density either. It's really weird. I'm wondering how these reporters - and you - are making that conclusion.
> You can see he's using the term "energy density" to refer to specific energy.
In that section, he does refer to the normal energy capacity / mass. Unfortunately, it's only of the Li metal fraction. Most of the batter by mass is something else, which means this is a useless number. PS: A conventional 18650 cell is 12.5 Wh / g of Li metal, which is better. Again, a useless number for the purpose of our discussion.
However, in other contexts, when it's making vague claims about energy density, the paper several times uses the phrase "high volumetric energy density", which strongly suggests that you're wrong.
> What is needed to reduce greenhouse gases is a safe, low-cost rechargeable battery with a high volumetric energy density and long cycle life for powering an all-electric road vehicle that is competitive in performance and in convenience with today’s automobiles.
> Attempts to develop Li-alloy anodes have generally failed to provide the volumetric energy density required for portable batteries.
Again, I don't know how anyone came up with this "3x better" number, because it's sure not in the paper verbatim. Maybe it's calculated from something in the paper? But I don't even see numbers for actual energy density (by mass nor by volume).
You say that you've also read the paper. Please explain to me where the "3x better" number comes from.
>That's a measure of energy density, so it's watt-hours per gram of battery for the lithium metal version, not watt-hours per gram of lithium. They specify that because this technology also works with sodium.
I see.
So, compared to an 18650 cell:
45 g, 100 Wh, 2.22 Wh / g
Vs "8.5 W h g^-1 (Li metal)"
8.5 / 2.22 = 3.8
Is that's the source of the "3x" number?
Maybe your interpretation is correct, but I see no reason to believe that your interpretation is correct. The cited passage is extremely ambiguous.
Just goes to show you age doesn't have to be a stumbling block so learning.
Elon Musk can eat shit.
Related.
news.ycombinator.com
I've been poking around, and I cannot find anyone who explains how they are getting this "3x" number. The paper doesn't use anything like that phrase. Was it from personal communication to one reporter, and everyone else just repeated it? That's my best guess.
you don't know where energy comes from do you?
Batteries are energy conveyors, not energy manufacturers.
I found one pop news article that actually cited its fucking sources, thank god. It cited this:
engr.utexas.edu
I'm guessing that most of the pop news sites out there are getting this "3x better" number from this article, and I'm guessing that this article author got that directly from personal private communications from Goodenough et al, and I'm guessing that this pop sci author didn't care enough to distinguish "volumetric energy density" from "energy density".
Also, direct link to the full paper for anyone who cares:
docs.wind-watch.org
37% efficient? my dude, no.
Yea, goddamn. I'm pretty well convinced that every report out there citing "3x better" is getting their info directly from the pop sci UT news article.
engr.utexas.edu
No one is actually getting that number from the paper itself. And god knows where the UT news article is getting it.