this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
370 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

76362 readers
4155 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

No, it actually hasn't. It's also not any better than any other battery tech out there right now. Longer term but less volume storage is a trade off.

What happened to these Graphene batteries and capacitors we were supposed to have by now?

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

sodium-ion is better than acid-lead in every use case (theoretically, when the tech reaches maturity), unlikely to beat lithium ion and others for the high-capacity/low weight type stuff but far as cheap/environmentally safe batteries goes sodium-ion should quickly dominate the field.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, this kind of tech can actually be groundbreaking.

10.000 charge cycles? You can imagine lot's of new things with that. Maybe not a capitalistic quick buck but something bettering society.

Also for what I have understood it's wildly better than lipo etc when it comes to resource use, especially "rare" earth.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

10k charge cycles isn't revolutionary. LFP do 8k and even then they just drop down to 80% of original capacity.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

For that price and energy density it IMO is

You could load up your car at work (just a silly example) and use it up at night at home, without thinking of degrading your expensive batteries.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Here is hoping.

[–] tty5@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

More durable, cheaper, can be operated at a wider temperature range and much safer, but at a cost of lower energy density.

They look like a big step forward for uses where density matters little, like grid energy storage or small scale home backups.

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The thing currently costs at least 50% more than the closest equivalent LiFePo4 from the same brand. The only real advantage seems to be it's ability to handle sub freezing temperatures, but usability still drops dramatically (both capacity and available power delivery). Everything else is straight up worse in this one in direct comparison.

It's only the first product, so it'll most certainly get better. Also as numbers of products sold rise, costs fall. Once these are cheaper, that are a real choice.

[–] tty5@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

CATL wholesale pricing per kWh is already almost 50% below lifepo with a goal of sub $20/kWh pricing in coming years.

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Sorry but the theoretical price of cells isn't relevant to the consumer. The price of products containing them is. This thing costs currently on the official site 900€ (with some sort of sale going on). The Elite 100v2 with comparable capacity, but using LiFePo4 (included in the same current sale) costs just 550€. To add insult to injury, it also outperforms the Na model in nearly every aspect except sub-freezing performance (where it at least still works, but nowhere near normal spec values either). This includes an abysmal solar charging efficiency for the Na of roughly 50% at normal temperature. Somehow.

Again, once the price reflects the cell cost, this could be a very attractive option. At the moment, unless you're into camping in sun-zero climates, it's just a very bad deal.

Edit: to be clear the Na model also doesn't have a better life expectancy, not according to the spec. Both models are specified to "over 4000 cycles", not there is no percentage threshold specified for the Na model. The LiFePo4 model includes "to 80% capacity" in that definition. If this is specified somewhere for the Na model, I can't find it.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

bluetti is grossly overpriced and heavy, and does not even have the features of comparable models from last year. It's not because there isn't mass avaialbility of cells/packs they could build from. It's just overcharging.