this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
412 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
81118 readers
3298 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We've been seeing claims like this for years and every time it's been total bullshit. 99.9% chance it is this time as well, but enjoy the thought experiment.
Sometimes it's not pure bullshit, but instead intentionally misses details
Like articles going "new battery lasts 1000 years in one charge!" - which is true of Nuclear Batteries, because they give basically a maximum of 1 watt of energy per hour. (Which is useful for very specific purposes like a pacemaker)
Nitpick perhaps, but watts are not a unit of energy.
Y'know, I had a feeling I put the wrong unit and then was like "nah... Sounds right", I should have went with my first instinct
you can think of the units of measure as multiplying and dividing sort of like the numbers themselves.
So if the nuclear battery continuously delivers 1 watt...
In one hour it would have delivered 1 Wh or watt-hour, because 1W * 1h = 1Wh.
And it works in reverse. If it takes 2 hours to deliver that 1 Wh? That's 1Wh per 2 hours or 1Wh/2h=0.5W!
Are you saying Grandma’s a WMD?
Yes, yes I am
Careful, 'Murica is gonna invade your grandma to bring democracy to her organs.
And yet we have somehow gone from rechargeable phone batteries that were about 3 times bigger than the phone I'm typing this on and had a capacity of about 500 mAh to where we are now with the battery that powers my phone being some small part of it and having a capacity of 3000 may, with only two major technology changes on the way. Meanwhile, we've been using the same technology for over a decade and the capability keeps getting better. I wonder why that is?
Those while are great are just pushing the tech in tiny increments. It's still the same tech. Kinda like how ICE vehicles got better and better, but they still use non-renewable energy.
This tech we need, is the leap from ICE to electric vehicles...vs an old model T to a modern Corolla.
An order of magnitude more power in the same form factor in 30 years isn't a tiny increment. It was certainly a number of tiny increments to get there. And for those big leaps you're so desperately looking for, it isn't one little group sitting down together thinking how they're going to do something. There are decades of research building out a number of tiny discoveries, combined by a group at an opportune time to put it all together so everyone can talk about this momentous leap that they, from the outside perceived as something new that sprung out of nothing.
Yea that again, doesn't negate what I've stated. Tiny increments throughout a technologies life is great, just like ICE vehicles, but it's tech from the 70s and we need the next leap forward.
Fusion power is based on the aeolipile and work by Marie Curie. Just because you don't see the all the incremental steps connecting those devices doesn't mean they aren't there.
That's like saying the wheel was invented thousands of years ago...you know what I'm talking about and are just being pedantic about it.
Once upon a time, that giant invented the wheel.
Fusion power ain't there yet though, bad example?
Fusion power isn't commercially practical. We could make a working fusion plant right now. It would suck and provide almost no power, but we could make one. And the difference between the one we can make today that barely works and isn't useful and one that would be useful will be some number of additional incremental steps between where we are today and when that would work. Which is exactly the point. And your attitude of, well we aren't using it today, so nothing has actually been done, is what I'm criticizing, so thanks for making the point even more obvious.
Wow, that's not my attitude at all, I said 'not there yet', I'm sorry you can't read bro
Sorry, didn't notice the different user name.
Ok fair, sorry for being snappy, I think fusion is cool and probably pretty close these days and get a bit defensive when I feel I'm misrepresented.
Great news! I heard a rumor that they're going to start making electric vehicles next week.
Xn
Perfect!
The problem is that batteries must meet a whole set of other criteria as well to be competitive, for example cost and energy density. If they are not mentioned, they are probably worse in that aspect. Which just means they are still useful for some applications, just maybe not for cars, laptops or cellphones.
Abstract
Downsizing metal nanoparticles into nanoclusters and single atoms represents a transformative approach to maximizing atom utilization efficiency for energy applications. Herein, a bovine serum albumin-templated synthetic strategy is developed to fabricate iron and nickel nanoclusters, which are subsequently hydrothermally composited with graphene oxide. Through KOH-catalyzed pyrolysis, the downsized metal nanoclusters and single atoms are embedded in a hierarchically porous protein/graphene-derived carbonaceous aerogel framework. The carbon-supported Fe subnanoclusters (FeSNC) as the negative electrode and Ni subnanoclusters (NiSNC) as the positive electrode exhibit remarkable specific capacitance (capacity) values of 373 F g−1 (93 mAh g−1) and 1125 F g−1 (101 mAh g−1) at 1.0 A g−1, respectively. Assembled into a supercapacitor-battery hybrid configuration, the device achieves an excellent specific energy (47 W h kg−1) and superior specific power (18 kW kg−1), while maintaining outstanding cycling stability of over 12 000 cycles. Moreover, FeSNCs displayed a significantly reduced oxygen evolution overpotential (η10 = 270 mV), outperforming the RuO2 benchmark (η10 = 328 mV). Molecular dynamics simulations, coupled with density functional theory calculations, offer insights into the dynamic behavior and electronic properties of these materials. This work underscores the immense potential of metallic subnanoclusters for advancing next-generation energy storage and conversion technologies.
yep.
SHould be a blanket ban on miraculous battery technology stories until they are actually in production and proven.
Cause lets face it, if one of these miracle batteries using cheap, common materials with amazing capacity and longevity was real, it wouldnt take long for companies to jump on them.
Research into the lithium ion battery started in the 1970s and they only became common in EVs in the 2010s.
So yes, it would "take long" for companies to "jump on them".
Electric cars existed long before the 2010s.
Late 19th/Early 20th century had about 1/3rd of all cars on the road be electric.
Long before lithium batteries were ever a thing.
Also, Theres a much higher demand thanks to the modern resurgence of electric cars, for better, cheaper batteries.
Which means that current car and battery makers have a much bigger incentive to jump on large scale miracle battery technology, than they did in the 1970s. Just like computers have much increased demand for ram today than they did in the 1970s. 🙄