505
submitted 1 week ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

Batteries have become much cheaper, making energy storage far more affordable.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Limonene@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

In 1991, lithium-ion batteries cost around $9,200 per kilowatt-hour โ€” 33 years later, they cost just $78.

Where can I get lithium-ion batteries for $78 per kilowatt-hour?

[-] Jalfred_prurock@lemmy.today 2 points 6 days ago

Buy SLDP. Solid state battery company It's the next big thing.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

I've been losing money on Dragonfly for months. Unfortunately, the market can be irrational longer than you can be solvent.

[-] Jalfred_prurock@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago

Always true for any investment. A bit of a gamble. Of course it doesn't help that Trump tries to emphasize internal combustion engines over electric cars. But he will be gone soon enough. The entire world is transitioning to electric cars. Some people will try to hang on to the old tech. It won't last.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

But he will be gone soon enough.

The fossil fuel lobby is older than Trump and far more influential, digging its roots deep into both major parties back to the Cleveland administration.

[-] Jalfred_prurock@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago

Absolutely agree. That said, there sure are a lot of Teslas and Rivians driving around today. My bet is that solid state batteries, which are right around the corner, will significantly change things.

If you have an electric car that can recharge in the same amount of time that it takes to fill the tank with gas, and that has a range of 500 mi plus, how is it not better and easier than a gas car in every way?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

That said, there sure are a lot of Teslas and Rivians driving around today.

Toyota outsells Tesla 10:1.

You notice Teslas because they look bizarre, while Toyotas fade into the crowd. Same with Rivians. Ford fully outstrips them by volume, but damn if that chasis doesn't pop.

If you have an electric car that can recharge in the same amount of time that it takes to fill the tank with gas

You don't. Even the highest end Chinese EVs need a solid 5 minutes to get to 70% charge.

I'm stick stuck on hybrids for the off instance I need to make a 400 mile drive.

Damn shame they cancelled that HSR through Texas. Would love to not drive at all.

[-] Jalfred_prurock@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago

5 minutes to 70% charge today. 10:1 Toyotas over Teslas today, with lithium ion batteries.

That changes with solid state batteries. Everything changes. Charge time and range with solid state batteries changes everything.

Long SLDP.

[-] Jalfred_prurock@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago

I see that bitchy downvoters are a thing here just like on Reddit. Anyone who thinks solid state batteries are not the next big thing is simply wrong.

It absolutely is the next big thing. Whether SLDP ends up being a brilliant investment is obviously a much more complicated question.

[-] Dholi@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

Why would you choose this over others?

[-] Jalfred_prurock@lemmy.today 4 points 6 days ago

It's the only company that has true solid state technology that it can produce at scale. Or, soon will be able to. Its main business model is selling the electrolyte powder to battery manufacturers. Do some reading on seekingalpha.com if you are interested

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 77 points 1 week ago

And yet, EV prices stubbornly high in North America.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

A la corporate profits.

There is a reason why the United States government blocks the sale of Chinese EVs. It would destroy the American car sector.

[-] Octagon9561@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

It should be destroyed

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

North America has little competition because of the tariffs on everything not made in USA.
AFAIK Canada is getting out of that shadow. I read an article about a month ago, how Canadian imports were routed through USA, and that it stifled EV adoption in Canada.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago

EV adoption was stifled by MAGA Premieres killing incentives and ripping out public chargers, while giving money to Detroit to keep building shitty trucks and muscle cars.

Meanwhile, to sell EVs in Europe, XPing is getting them made in Austria using Magna, a Canadian company. Why didn't Carney/Ford insist on this in Ontario?

BYD tried to build buses in Ontario but they were so shit they had to close the plant and pay a bunch of lawsuits. And BYD is hurting, they just laid off 100,000 worldwide.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 6 days ago

Are they hurting? They still made a massive amount of profit, it's just that their lead is shrinking. They're still the biggest EV manufacturer by far, though Geely could catch up in a few years.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

If only prices were related to costs ... ๐Ÿ˜„

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 44 points 1 week ago

making electrified transport a reality

Electrified rail remains the most efficient form of transportation and has been available since the late 1800s......

People are just so obsessed with cars that they ignored the safest, most efficient, and environmentally friendly option for over a hundred years.

I guess the future is bound to be filled with dangerous traffic with even heavier cars, and filled with millions of batteries filled with lithium mined by impoverished children.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago

I don't think it's an "obsession with cars" or that people are "ignoring" electrified rail.

The problem is that there are things that are in your direct control, like buying a car and using the roads which exist. Then, there are things outside your direct control, like trying to get your government to install electrified rail. Even if you have a really responsive government that isn't captured by special interests, getting rail built and up and running can take a decade. And, if you need to get from A to B, you can't wait for a decade. Even if you're really pro-rail during that decade you still need to travel, so you're likely to be forced into getting a car. Once you have a car, then rail might become less of a priority because you are now a car user. Maybe eventually you'll still want to use the rail system, but for now you have a car, so your priorities are still going to include car priorities.

This all changes if you live somewhere where there's already great rail service. In that case, you might already have rail available when you move somewhere and all you need to do is encourage your local government to keep funding rail and not subsidizing cars. At that point, the car driver demographic is small and easy to ignore.

The problem is in switching from one system to the other. You need a government that is going to weather the complaints from drivers for years while the rail infrastructure is being put in place until you get to a point where drivers can start selling their cars and switching to rail. That's really hard to do though, because going from poor rail infrastructure to good rail infrastructure can take a decade, and politicians often have terms lasting only 4 years or so. That means that they have to take on the expense and pain of starting a rail project and then facing an election long before the system is up and running. It's actually surprising how many politicians are willing to do that, given that it's so hard on their political careers. It's unsurprising that most of them don't want to do it because it means getting re-elected is much more difficult than if they just stick with the status quo.

Meanwhile, the special interests like car companies, car dealerships, gas stations, etc. are all going to be lobbying against any rail projects. In North America it's even harder because car companies are local, whereas the companies that make trains are mostly European. So, the car-related lobby can talk all about the impact on local jobs, whereas the rail lobby has to deal with the jobs mostly being in Europe. Even without that, it's hard to change things because of the issue of diffuse costs and concentrated interests. Hundreds of thousands of commuters might benefit from a rail system, but it's probably not their #1 priority, it's something they care about, but at best it's #4 or #5. Meanwhile for car companies, etc. it's a top priority. While you might not want to go to every city council meeting where this is being discussed. It's almost certain that the auto lobby will ensure their voice is heard because it's at the top of their list.

In the end, it's a lot more complex than just people being obsessed with cars, or ignoring light rail.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 days ago

It's not just cars. Electric cars became somewhat widespread before electric scooters. Those are awesome for getting around town quickly and are only feasible because of how cheap batteries have gotten. Cars could hide the battery cost easier than scooters, which you expect to be cheap.

And of course other forms of electric mobility too.

[-] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago

And trolley buses, which are cheaper to install and more flexible for lower volumes of passengers. They don't need a battery either, alternatively can use a very small one, and this saves a lot of weight.

[-] Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Eh, as long as the gas prices don't concern me... /s

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

People are just so obsessed with cars

It's hardly an obsession among the vox populi. Highway construction is dogma produced by the Church of the Petrochemical Company. We continue to cling to low density, high cost cement roadways because that's why billionaires and their lobbyists tell elected officials to pay for.

Where rail exists, people flock to it. But you have to build before people can come.

[-] titanicx@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

The infrastructure to build and run would be enormous in most of the US. In smaller, more compact countries, sure. But in the area I live, I couldn't imagine this.

[-] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

US was built on rail, and it was way less dense and urban back then. The problem is not how "compact" a country is, it's simply a question of priorities and budgets. China and EU are investing in rail (to varying degrees), so they get rail with all its benefits. US is wasting more and more money on financially unsustainable car infrastructure, so it is getting failing car infrastructure.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 16 points 1 week ago

Not when compared to the maintenance and cost of installing the amount of multi lane interstate and highways we currently have in the US.

Electric rail isn't a solution for every commuter in the US, but it is the solution for most commuters, as 80% of Americans live in urban environments.

Also, the argument that America is too large to have rail isnt very logical when countries like Russia or China depend on it for the vast majority of their logistics.

[-] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

And yet the US has an interstate highway network that requires constant maintenance far exceeding that of a railway network

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago

It's amazing how much batteries have decreased in price, we now not only have mid range cars that can be electric, the lower range sub compacts have been entering the EV market too.
Among all the shit happening today, this is actually a bright spot, making an EV more affordable to normal households.
Maybe except USA that is clearly behind now, despite Tesla was a major influence in the early days of EV.

[-] Frozentea725@feddit.uk 12 points 1 week ago

All the shit happening may lead to an earlier transition into renewables, ironically trump to help reduce the impacts of climate change. We should name the new wind turbines in his honour. But yeah the US will be fucked, power in the new currency in electrostates and renewable is significantly cheaper

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Lol. Although this claim might be technically true, comparing the cost of the first prototype lithium ion battery with a modern mass produced batteries is apples to oranges.

[-] Gork@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 week ago

But the savings haven't flowed down to us. Gotta make line go up, it seems.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Lithium ion batteries are far cheaper now at a consumer level than they were thirty years back.

EDIT: I'm actually surprised that a higher proportion of laptops today don't ship with 100 Wh batteries. Go back some years, and shrinking the battery had a much larger difference in cost than it does today. The larger battery gives you longer battery longevity (makes it more reasonable to charge to 80%, say), can be used to make a laptop run more quickly, can power more devices. The only drawback is weight, and it isn't that heavy.

load more comments
view more: next โ€บ
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
505 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

83600 readers
2936 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS