@alyx @fuggy @xianc78 ... isn't that what we currently do?

where's that jpg when you need it about how it's all just boiling water in increasingly elaborate ways

@roboneko @xianc78 @fuggy
Yes, that's what we do to make electricity out of a nuclear reactor.
I meant that in the hypothetical idea of making a nuclear powered car, the car's engine itself wouldn't be electric, as you'd initially assume, but driven directly by the steam.

@alyx @xianc78 @fuggy ok this is an awesome idea I want one now

@fuggy @alyx @xianc78 maybe it is, I dunno. kind of wishy washy in places isn't it

@roboneko @xianc78 @fuggy
Haven't heard about silicone batteries. But doesn't really matter much what chemistry it uses, as long as the battery relies on chemical reactions to store and release energy, there's a limit to how fast you can charge it without making it either explode or just melt itself from the heat it makes.

@alyx@gameliberty.club @roboneko@bae.st @xianc78@gameliberty.club just put a heckin nuclear fusion reactor in there bro!1!1!3!4 reddit r/science said they are heckin awesome man trust me

@alyx @xianc78 @fuggy they scaled the chemical bits down so far that there was no longer supposed to be a fire risk. etching stuff on to wafers the same as chips and then stacking it vertically since you don't actually need working transistors and the feature size requirement isn't nearly as demanding as for ASICs

ofc there are still presumably longevity issues because on the microscopic level ugly stuff happens at the chemical interface when you run current aggressively

not sure where it's at in terms of commercialisation. made it out of the lab and got funded as a startup a few years ago. I know they had a few working prototypes fabbed. they were fairly secretive though so who knows how it's going

@roboneko @xianc78 @fuggy
So far only thing I manage to find was references to silicon-lithium batteries, and it doesn't sound like what you're talking about.

>there was no longer supposed to be a fire risk
short circuit the battery, and I promise you something will give out and fire will happen.

But the issue is that no matter how you construct the battery, getting the electrons in it to move around, when charging or discharging, will generate heat. That's basic physics, electric resistance. It's inevitable. The faster you charge/discharge the more heat you get. Try to charge it too fast, and something undesirable is inevitable to happen.

@alyx @xianc78 @fuggy yes I understand that. I believe the idea was that even if you melted the thing it wasn't supposed to catch on fire. I'm not sure tho. at least they were making a big deal about it being far safer. current lithium stuff seems to be incredibly dangerous compared to other battery tech

the glass one is supposed to be quite safe in that regard as well

XNRGI is the silicone one I was referring to. doesn't seem to be any news for a couple years now so maybe commercialization flopped for some reason

the glass stuff was a university lab iirc and I think they licensed it to some canadian public utility (???) to develop further

@roboneko @xianc78 @fuggy
So it seems the XNRGI stuff is basically the same to what I found earlier, just uses different fancy language to describe itself.
Fundamentally, they're talking about using silicon for the anode, in a nano-structure, but they still use lithium for the cathode.
As for what the issue could have been as for why it's not a commercial success yet, to quote an article:
"There being no such thing as a free lunch, there is a problem. Silicon anodes expand almost 300% during the charging process, when lithium ions crowd in. When the battery discharges, the lithium ions make an exit, leaving the silicon anode to wither back down to its original size.

As a result of the stress, the anode eventually cracks and disintegrates, with a consequent impact on battery life."

Regarding the glass battery, first thing that comes up is a Wiki article, and it seems pretty clear from the start that there's some shenanigans. I'd wait a bit more before putting any hope on this. And considering this would be a solid-state battery, that's even more reason to suspect it won't have the energy density we're looking for.

There's still a shot that the silicone thing could yield good results, but imo it's still far off from being available on the market.

Personally I'm waiting for something that doesn't use lithium. I think the biggest problem with current batteries is that they're using materials that are pretty rare. I simply don't see a future where we have enough lithium for every device, car, house and electric grid battery storage facility needed for a 0 fossil fuel world.

@alyx @xianc78 @fuggy no worries I don't blindly believe in any of it. commercialization is where a lot of stuff fails obviously. but the silicon based stuff is relevant for fast charging even if the usable cycle count ends up being worse

that stress stuff happens to (nearly?) all the lithium battery chemistries afaik. although obviously in different degrees and somewhat different ways and this one may well be significantly worse. there are electron micrographs of end of life batteries in the literature. sorry I'm too lazy to pull anything right now

as far as avoiding rare metals I wonder if one of the fuel cell catalysts might get improved on and ultimately win that one