They don't mention it in this article but the big positive going for Sodium batteries is the cost, they are half the price of li-ion per KWH and about a third the price of Li-Pho. There are already quite cheap Sodium battery based cars out from BYD and while they are the lower range end of things (200 miles) they are also considerably cheaper.
So I think Sodium will find its way into the lower range EVs and home/grid storage since its so much cheaper. But I don't imagine we will want less power in phones or laptops as sodium is bigger and heavier.
I would love a lower end rickshaw/golfcart tier small ev. It would be great for trips and errands around town you could do on lower speed roads. I don’t need a 5000lb behemoth.
Why do you say they don't mention the cost? I'm sorry but like that's what the ENTIRE article is about, the cost savings of sodium batteries over lithium.
For me, the biggest benefit is the dramatically improved environmental profile. You drop a lithium battery in a body of water and besides the potential for some interesting pyrotechnics, you also have a moderately bad environmental pollution situation. I expect the situation to be much better with a sodium based battery.
This is the short version of The Economist's piece on sodium batteries. For headline stories there is often a short and a long version. The long version is linked in the article or you can find it here:
Yeah the ignorance here is pretty strong. Unless all these people have inside knowledge that CATL's claimed density and specs are BS.
CATL's Sodium Ion is 160 wh/kg. That's basically LFP, and LFP means a 200-300 mile car, and supposed to scale to $40/kwhr (cell level) which implies a drivetrain cost at initial purchase that is almost physically impossible for ICE to match.
Roadmap is 200 wh/kg, and while roadmaps are often a bit optimistic from chinese manufacturers timewise, they do seem to hit the densities.
The other big news is CATL is doing 200+ wh/kg LFP, and of course has roadmaps for 230+.
We shall see, but if CATL and others meet the cost and density estimates with acceptable cycle endurance and safety, it is a clear path to probably 3-4 billion EVs.
And if Sodium-Sulfur and Lithium-Sulfur succeed ... that should be 2x to 3x the power density
> Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of sodium batteries is their late start.
Sodium batteries have a long history. I know the US Navy was using them for batteries on their submarines back in the 70s, and they surely started long before then. Lead-acid batteries emit H2 which would be a disaster in a sub.
On problem I remember about them was that they run very hot, and are liable to catch fire. Perhaps that has been solved in the last five decades!
Sodium batteries looks great on the outside, but amount of charge discharge cycles is roughly half what lithium batteries can do. So what you will save on cost difference between sodium and lithium will get eaten up by shorter life of sodium battery.
Understand that, they're about half the cost of lithium currently, but they don't have nearly the same scale benefit as lithium does. It's likely that cost could half again if they achieved the same scale.
And recall that, early lithium batteries had a fraction of the longevity that current designs have, so, it's likely that sodium batteries have plenty of room for improvement in that regard as well.
In my mind, the likely application is grid-scale storage where density doesn't matter as much but upfront cost does. Not really so much for renewables, but more so that you can store your unused base load during offpeak hours for later use.
That's true, which makes them perfect for Powerwall-type backup power, where weight is not a concern and the number of cycles will be very low.
The other way to deal with low cycle count is to keep the cells only half-charged and minimize the excursions from that. A large pack that goes from 40 to 60 percent daily will last eons compared to one cycled from 90 to 10 percent.
From what I understand, the degradation of the cell is not linear with the discharge excursion. So you may have exponentially better battery life the narrower of charge band you keep it in. If anyone has more detailed information let me know, I'd like to see better numbers.
That’s fine though. Thanks to time value of money, if it costs half as much but has to be replaced in half the time it’s actually quite profitable. (Assuming, of course, the labor cost is low.)
If they can be recycled like lithium, even better.
Something that will complicate technological solutions going forward is the need to have no negative environmental impacts across the entire lifecycle of any new contraptions, under a scenario where they are produced, used and recycled at planetary scale and for... a long time.
These types of constraints did not exist in the earlier technological innovation eras but are sort-of self-evident now: There is not much point to do embark on expensive retooling of the entire energy system if it simply results in a sort of "footprint-shift", reduce GHG emissions but increase environmental impacts elsewhere.
The article (and links therein) don't provide an immediate view on these aspects of different approaches to battery construction. Maybe it is too early in the cycle. But I think these issues will have to be explored thoroughly for any solution that is deemed technically and economically viable.
It'll be interesting to see whether there might be any kind of late-mover advantage for those who sat out lithium and begin pursuing sodium-based batteries now.
Sodium battery production mosdef benefits from lithium's advances.
As you know, each new chemistry (and anode, cathode, etc) opens up new niches, use cases, and price points. Sodium won't displace so much as compliment lithium.
Lithium is plentiful enough for grid storage, but it's so at a higher price than it has today. It's also cheap enough for mobile batteries, but not negligible, and cost is the most important metric for grid storage.
Thus, lithium looks like one of the fundamental bottlenecks for grid storage. It can kinda work on high-cost small-size pilot projects, but we probably won't be able to use it for real.
Sodium on the other hand has all of the same desirable chemistry properties, but scales much better. And iron has all the cost benefits, but undesirable chemical properties. (And there are, of course, people working on C-H vs. C-OH bonds that are completely out of the box.)
Lithium isn't scarce relative to current demand levels but if the automotive industry wants to transition to 100% EVs that's an enormous increase in demand.
My understanding is for batteries lithium is the less tricky one because it doesn't change size during redox reactions. Sodium does and that damages the anode or cathode (can't remember which, don't care).
Yeah and the low production of lithium is due minimal demand historically. It's not like other metals with a large historic demand. Like copper.
Well, graphite is not all that scarce either. The problem is that China has almost complete dominance in the anode material production (ie, graphite) with 90+% market share in EV battery supply-chain.
Is this better from a safety standpoint? All I remember from sodium in its normal metal form in school was that it had to be kept in a bottle of oil because as soon as it gets into contact with oxygen it spontaneously combusts.. Which is exactly the problem with lithium cells too.
If news outlets took all of the money they have spent paying writers to tell us that a new battery technology will be here any day now, they probably could have funded one that actually will be here any day now.
What are you talking about? Nothing in the article even remotely suggests that.
What it does say is that most of the world's refining of lithium takes place in China. It's right there in the subtitle: "Lithium is relatively scarce and mostly refined in China."
Acquiring sodium wrecks the landscape to the exact same extent as does lithium extraction. The only differences between them are 1) we already wrecked all the territory for sodium, so fallacious sunk-cost thinking kicks in, and 2) there is not (yet) a dedicated astroturf campaign funded by oil companies against sodium.
We just need to combine desalination for drinking water with sodium extraction for batteries. Solves some of the ecological problems from doing each in isolation.
Our oceans are full of Sodium in very high concentrations. Sodium Choloride, aka. NaCl, aka kitchen salt. About 11 grams per kg in ocean water. And about 90 grams in the average human body. Lots of salt deposits in former salt lakes, mineral deposits, etc. Neither scarce nor hard to harvest.
You would literally die without sodium in your body. Very common mineral and pretty easy to get to.
[+] [-] Gasp0de|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulKeeble|2 years ago|reply
So I think Sodium will find its way into the lower range EVs and home/grid storage since its so much cheaper. But I don't imagine we will want less power in phones or laptops as sodium is bigger and heavier.
[+] [-] kjkjadksj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KRAKRISMOTT|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylebenzle|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snapplebobapple|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scythe|2 years ago|reply
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/10/25/...
https://archive.ph/Tw4Gj
[+] [-] tromp|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33750955
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|2 years ago|reply
CATL's Sodium Ion is 160 wh/kg. That's basically LFP, and LFP means a 200-300 mile car, and supposed to scale to $40/kwhr (cell level) which implies a drivetrain cost at initial purchase that is almost physically impossible for ICE to match.
Roadmap is 200 wh/kg, and while roadmaps are often a bit optimistic from chinese manufacturers timewise, they do seem to hit the densities.
The other big news is CATL is doing 200+ wh/kg LFP, and of course has roadmaps for 230+.
We shall see, but if CATL and others meet the cost and density estimates with acceptable cycle endurance and safety, it is a clear path to probably 3-4 billion EVs.
And if Sodium-Sulfur and Lithium-Sulfur succeed ... that should be 2x to 3x the power density
[+] [-] gumby|2 years ago|reply
Sodium batteries have a long history. I know the US Navy was using them for batteries on their submarines back in the 70s, and they surely started long before then. Lead-acid batteries emit H2 which would be a disaster in a sub.
On problem I remember about them was that they run very hot, and are liable to catch fire. Perhaps that has been solved in the last five decades!
[+] [-] pfdietz|2 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery
[+] [-] MisterTea|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheLoafOfBread|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtriangle|2 years ago|reply
And recall that, early lithium batteries had a fraction of the longevity that current designs have, so, it's likely that sodium batteries have plenty of room for improvement in that regard as well.
In my mind, the likely application is grid-scale storage where density doesn't matter as much but upfront cost does. Not really so much for renewables, but more so that you can store your unused base load during offpeak hours for later use.
[+] [-] mips_r4300i|2 years ago|reply
The other way to deal with low cycle count is to keep the cells only half-charged and minimize the excursions from that. A large pack that goes from 40 to 60 percent daily will last eons compared to one cycled from 90 to 10 percent.
From what I understand, the degradation of the cell is not linear with the discharge excursion. So you may have exponentially better battery life the narrower of charge band you keep it in. If anyone has more detailed information let me know, I'd like to see better numbers.
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|2 years ago|reply
This is not true if you are talking about lithium ion batteries. It may be true for some chemistries if you are talking about lithium iron phosphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery#Comparison
[+] [-] mattmaroon|2 years ago|reply
If they can be recycled like lithium, even better.
[+] [-] vardump|2 years ago|reply
Please remember there are a lot of different sodium-ion chemistries.
[+] [-] nologic01|2 years ago|reply
These types of constraints did not exist in the earlier technological innovation eras but are sort-of self-evident now: There is not much point to do embark on expensive retooling of the entire energy system if it simply results in a sort of "footprint-shift", reduce GHG emissions but increase environmental impacts elsewhere.
The article (and links therein) don't provide an immediate view on these aspects of different approaches to battery construction. Maybe it is too early in the cycle. But I think these issues will have to be explored thoroughly for any solution that is deemed technically and economically viable.
[+] [-] dctoedt|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recursive|2 years ago|reply
Sodium is good for stationary deployments. It's not good when weight matters.
[+] [-] specialist|2 years ago|reply
As you know, each new chemistry (and anode, cathode, etc) opens up new niches, use cases, and price points. Sodium won't displace so much as compliment lithium.
[+] [-] somethoughts|2 years ago|reply
[Update] Watched a CNBC video[1] and found one in Silicon Valley.
https://natron.energy/news-and-events/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQE56ksVBB4
[+] [-] _ea1k|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcosdumay|2 years ago|reply
Thus, lithium looks like one of the fundamental bottlenecks for grid storage. It can kinda work on high-cost small-size pilot projects, but we probably won't be able to use it for real.
Sodium on the other hand has all of the same desirable chemistry properties, but scales much better. And iron has all the cost benefits, but undesirable chemical properties. (And there are, of course, people working on C-H vs. C-OH bonds that are completely out of the box.)
[+] [-] opencl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gibbon1|2 years ago|reply
Yeah and the low production of lithium is due minimal demand historically. It's not like other metals with a large historic demand. Like copper.
[+] [-] tooltalk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paiute|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtriangle|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] margalabargala|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] interroboink|2 years ago|reply
I'll hold back from giving you a let-me-google-that-for-you link (:
[1] https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805680782897.html
[+] [-] bill38|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vardump|2 years ago|reply
Are sodium ion batteries somehow different? If so, how can they keep metallic sodium stable at all?
[+] [-] rini17|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|2 years ago|reply
I wonder how much of the cost of home batteries involves shipping costs though.
[+] [-] wkat4242|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmaroon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldbbsnickname|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|2 years ago|reply
I wonder what the connection is.
[+] [-] NikkiA|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megaman821|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazygringo|2 years ago|reply
What it does say is that most of the world's refining of lithium takes place in China. It's right there in the subtitle: "Lithium is relatively scarce and mostly refined in China."
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jeffbee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RandomLensman|2 years ago|reply
Salt for batteries might also be a tougher target for any campaigns against it.
[+] [-] biomcgary|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
Our oceans are full of Sodium in very high concentrations. Sodium Choloride, aka. NaCl, aka kitchen salt. About 11 grams per kg in ocean water. And about 90 grams in the average human body. Lots of salt deposits in former salt lakes, mineral deposits, etc. Neither scarce nor hard to harvest.
You would literally die without sodium in your body. Very common mineral and pretty easy to get to.
[+] [-] chris_va|2 years ago|reply