• Skeezix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    So what’s the deal, are they better, stronger, faster? Or take a hit for the cost/environment?

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Potentially cheaper and uses more abundant materials than lithium ion, but not as energy dense, so not ready yet for automotive purposes. They have a much higher cycle life and faster charge/discharge rates, though, so good potential for applications that don’t need to move like data center power backups.

      • northendtrooper@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        My first goto would be a cellphone battery. Having a cellphone battery lasting months longer than what I had to deal with on my old phone. I welcome this.

        • carzian@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Its not as energy dense, overall battery life will be worse. The battery won’t degrade as fast overtime, so the battery will keep more total capacity over the years, as compared to a lithium ion battery that would have noticeably less battery after a few years of use.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      At 1000 times the abundancy, it is already 233 times better for stationary applications than lithium ion, no?