this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
429 points (85.9% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3394 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
429
AI comes up with battery design that uses 70 per cent less lithium (www.newscientist.com)
submitted 10 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Every time we get one of these articles we see some advancement in battery tech. But that is usually superseded by the amount of power hungry components new tech uses. So phones have gotten more complex with more power hungry components and every time we improve battery tech, the tech giants engineers figure out a way to utilise that new tech to cram more power hungry components inside and that's why batteries don't last as long as we remember.

There's no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you're not going to see an improvement in battery life.

[–] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's kind of like CPU power and software bloat.

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

On my S10E I could adjust the CPU power limit to 80%. I had great battery life. Like two days of battery life. Until one android update when it went away.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't understand why these updates seem to take away some of the most useful features imaginable (the optional CPU underclock) and in return we get "dIfFeReNtLy ShApEd BuTtOnS" and "NeW eMoJi InTeGrAtIoNs"

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

This is why we need to change the way we do things every few years, move faster than our waste stream.

Which is faster turning your phone on and checking your email or turning your desktop on and checking your email? Which lasts long your cellphone battery or your laptop battery? Which has more free software that has been vetted for problems in one location your computer or your cellphone?

It isn't that your phone is better, it is not, it has just not yet become shitty. Give it time, and then move on to the next thing. The thing that hasn't yet been shat on.

[–] june@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not really sure what your comment has to do with the article.

The headline is a battery that uses less lithium, not a battery that generates more voltage, has a longer life, or is otherwise better at powering things. The advancement here is a materials advancement that we desperately need as lithium is a finite resource.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

In response to the naysayers who don't think we ever use these battery technologies that we developed. The people in the comments of this post specifically.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.

That's too much of a blanket statement to be believable as factual truth.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I’ll let a battery expert tell you instead.

Tell me what, that I agree with what the article you posted says? Seems self-evident in my initial response, pushing back against the "not going to see any improvement" comment ...

There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.

That’s too much of a blanket statement to be believable as factual truth.

From the article...

Moore’s Law has simply outpaced battery technology, meaning that our phones have gotten better — and demanded more power — at a much faster rate than advancements in batteries have.

... and ...

It’s not that there haven’t been any improvements: we’ve been able to steadily increase energy density over the past few years by shrinking down internal components. But according to Srinivasan, “Five years ago, it became clear we couldn’t remove any more things, there were fires. We’ve reached a stage where new improvements in energy density are going to come from changing battery materials, and new materials are always slower compared to what I would call engineering advances.”

Those are two different things. We're using the new battery tech (and hence agreeing with the article), its just that the new battery tech can't keep up with the computer tech's power needs.