this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
48 points (100.0% liked)

technology

24315 readers
336 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 10 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Lithium batteries are already 90% efficient, how do you get 20% better efficiency than that?

Is he talking about density instead?

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I skipped the video and went straight to the source article

According to the company, sodium-powered heavy trucks showed around 15% lower energy consumption per kilometre compared with lithium-ion equivalents, while deeper discharge capability enabled roughly 20% longer range under typical conditions. The company stated that these results indicate that sodium battery heavy trucks have moved from technical validation into early-stage commercial application.

So "efficiency" means "range" and it's a confluence of multiple factors that allegedly allow sodium batteries to use more of the power they store and use their power more efficiently. The article notes that sodium batteries are still more expensive than lithium-ion, but pretty much every major EV maker on China has R&D programs on them at the moment, leading to speculation that the costs will converge around 2027 and allow this battery technology to take over commercially.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 3 points 7 hours ago

That's pretty impressive

[–] fluffy8192@hexbear.net 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

maybe it's 20% less inefficient.

so 90% efficient could be called 10% inefficient. and 20% of 10% is 2%. so 20% better efficiency gets you a 92% efficient battery.

it's a stretch yes, but stranger things have happened in the funny lands of title crafting

[–] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 2 points 4 hours ago

Could be gains in weight as well. A significantly lighter battery will have gains in range efficiency for a vehicle if it was much lighter that the other.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 3 points 4 hours ago

that sounds like something marketing would come up with

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 4 points 8 hours ago

Lol good point. Since it's a proportional comparison there's got to be a way to make it make sense. Depends on the efficiency calculation itself though.

Could be a 20% decrease in energy loss so 10% * 20% = 2% Meaning overall efficiency is up to 92%. Doesn't exactly seem honest but 🤷

Could be cold weather performance.