Kind of like there's no reason we can't go to Mars for tourism. Just make it as convenient, safe, and cheap as a jet to London.
Making things bulletproof and massive runs opposite of cheap
doesn't burn like LiFePo4 so no fire risks, though I am not sure what a short-circuit would do in damage/danger
why even under a structure though, just do it like a septic tank?
Regulator help is needed here.
It would have been difficult given the state of other technology at the time for the inventors of the internal combustion engine to have supplied it as a drop-in horse replacement for your carriage, but you could kind of imagine that working with current technology.
apparently the problem is there is not yet enough volume in production to compete on price, which I thought was the whole point?
> sodium-ion specs have improved to the point that the technology could break into the general EV market. A recent study by Moritz Schütte at Aachen University in Germany and his colleagues found that a sodium-ion battery by the manufacturer Hina rivals Tesla’s lithium-ion batteries on most parameters, although it would still be a third heavier
> But CATL claims its sodium-ion battery has an energy density of 175 watt-hours per kilogram, which can compete with the lithium-iron-phosphate batteries in low-cost models from Tesla and others. And while sodium-ion batteries still haven’t quite beaten lithium batteries on price, that could change as they expand, according to Schütte
> sodium ions generate less heat in electrochemical reactions, reducing fire risk, so less money can be spent on cooling. They also form weaker bonds with the electrolyte, so they don’t slow down as much in the cold
My understanding about sodium though is that the performance in cold and heat is excellent. So even if you pay a penalty for weight, you can drop the thermal management, which saves quite a bit.
For grid storage, this chemistry will be a game changer. For vehicle, I think it has a ways to go before being preferred over LFP, but that's a guess.
ie. so the fire department doesn't have to spend three days trying to put out a Tesla fire
for long hauls, not stop and go city traffic, the weight penalty doesn't matter as much once the weight is moving
a tractor-trailer could have a huge cell behind the cab or replacement the massive diesel tanks?
But put a battery in it suddenly they need new tech before you'll be comfortable?
Gasoline car fires are quite rarer in modern cars (don't know about the 1950s), and easier to put off than battery car fires.
And people are already afraid of high speed collisions, plus they are orthogonal of the energy technology used.
>Personal vehicles are by far the most dangerous apparatus with which we interact, already.
And under what framing does it make sense to use the above to argue in favor of adding a dangerous battery tech to them is thus not problematic?
That's not to say that it's a stopper for them; it's just part of the cost/benefits analysis. The idea of technologies that are better on all parts of the cost/benefit analysis at once is a science fiction or video game concept. In the real world there's always a mixture of positives and negatives between two different technologies.
Aqueous sodium ion chemistries like Na-VPF and Na-tmCN are more fire-safe than lithium, but they're also not as developed/available yet.
Na-NMF, which is what a random off-the-shelf sodium cell is likely to be, is actually more flammable than LiFePO4.
The presence of a different failure mode isn't the question at issue. Yes, they're new tech and require new techniques. Duh, as it were.
It's your abject and frankly irrational paranoia that I'm calling out. Chill the fuck out, as it were. Moving things have always been dangerous, and if you believe this represents a change in aggregate risk you are simply wrong.
Many rightly are.