• Ertebolle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Think again, Jimmy. You see the firing pin in your gun was made out of, yep, zinc.”

  • Dave@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if it can be cheaper and better at scale than iron-air batteries. Those seem inexpensive to make, and can carry a large enough capacity if you put a whole lot of them in parallel with each other, and have a long lifetime. They’re just really heavy for their amount of energy density and fairly low current per cell, but that shouldn’t be a problem when building enough to be grid-scale.

    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      At that point one can use Na/O2… Much higher energy released by redox reaction, much lighter

    • marsokod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends on what you value. For performance and power density, nothing really beats lithium at the moment.

      However, for grid-scale battery these parameters are not necessarily very important. What matters most is cost over the lifetime, and that’s wher zinc batteries could be useful. They have the potential to be much cheaper than the cheapest lithium batteries.

    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They do. They are just looking for cheap way to store energy. They don’t care if batteries are big, heavy and less efficient, they need something as cheap as possible for a range of use cases where cost is important.

      Lithium is expensive. My bet is that, on the long term, sodium will be used for such use cases. But in practice decision must account for practical limitations, primarily supply chain