So digging just a little bit deeper you may find statements from the researchers behind this new Na-S battery saying things like:
- “Dr Zhao’s Na-S battery has been designed specifically as a solution for large-scale renewable energy storage systems.” Well yes, energy density is less of an issue in standing storage energy systems so that makes sense doesn’t it.
- “It’s unclear if the battery technology would translate and perform competitively in the automotive world.” Doesn’t have me super excited about potential lithium competition yet - how about you?
- “this Na-S battery exhibited “super-high capacity and ultra-long life” at room temperature”. The “room temperature” part means “in a climate controlled lab” environment in case you are unaware of the research processes.
The actual published academic paper from which all this news you are alerting us all to stems from is entitled “Atomically Dispersed Dual-Site Cathode with a Record High Sulfur Mass Loading for High-Performance Room-Temperature Sodium–Sulfur Batteries” and can be found be simple Google search of its title.
You may be interested that the paper includes some details of the increased life of Na-S battery cells they obtained … for example the following (but do read the simple chemical academic paper to get the full context):
- “Remarkably, the S@MoS2-Mo1/SGF delivers an initial capacity of 1017 mAh g−1 and retains a high capacity of 505 mAh g−1 after 1000 cycles at 0.1 A g−1.”. So about half capacity lost after 1000 charge-discharge cycles pulling 0.1A/g … how many charge-discharge cycles do you want you next car battery to have before half capacity down?
Also did you realise the scale of the experimental results so far? No - have a good read of the published paper to better understand that part (hint, it wasn’t “big”
.
So thank you for bringing this all to our attention - can you now confirm exactly your sources for those bold statements you have made across the day? Hopefully they are to scientific papers which are peer reviewed and published not just some google search of generic reporting agencies if you really want to publish your otherwise unsubstantiated statements with no qualifiers.
No more from me on this front. Unless and until you can provide that proper substantiation or direct me to where the statements I’ve quoted here are incorrect.
(20min delay)