this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
744 points (99.9% liked)
Technology
83784 readers
3871 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Under modern physics, Lithium is pretty much the best possible chemical to build batteries out of. Anything else that might be better won't be a chemical battery, and it's not like there's any reason to suspect some new magic thing will be created like a pocket-size fusion reactor that will make chemical batteries totally obsolete any time soon. Decades more of lithium batteries being relevant are as close to guaranteed as can be.
Depends on how you define "best". Likely the highest possible short-term energy density, yes, but that isn't the only thing we might want out of a battery. "Doesn't catch fire" is one of the areas where the highest-energy lithium battery chemistries are far from the best, for instance.
Lithium's energy density is largely the cause of its flammability - if you accept density and capacity comparable to another battery chemistry, you can get it down to a comparable fire risk, even if there's not much point bothering.
Nickel iron batteries, while heavier and less energy dense have virtually infinite lifespan. As such it is a far better battery for home power walls than lithium.
Me when different solutions are optimal for different goals
Except nickel is fairly rare, driving up the costs. Sodium isn't
Sodium batteries? Of course it depends on their use a bit.
Those are not “better” batteries chemically or electrically. They are just cheaper and don’t use lithium which is considered a feature.
Sodium batteries are cheaper, safer, and last longer than lithium batteries. That's exactly what you want for grid-scale energy storage. So yes, sodium IS better than lithium for grid-scale energy storage
Cheaper is a kind of better.
Cheap, high longevity, high capacity. You can't have all three.
What's better depends on application. I don't want a cheap battery in my car if I only get 80 miles on a charge.
Go reread the thread. You're (hopefully unintentionally) arguing against using sodium batteries for grid storage because lithuim has more energy density.
Cost, high longevity, and heat tolerance are way more important for grid storage than energy density. Sodium batteries are perfect for that, and were poised to start being supplied for that application until the price of lithium tanked at the start of the year.
Also, the sodium batteries that are (and were) about to go to market have enough energy density that manufacturers were considering adding them to cars by mixing and matching sodium and lithium cells in varying ratios to match various use cases. The two chemistries aren't mutually exclusive in any field
That's great for grid storage. Maybe one day for even EV use, emphasis on maybe. But you'll never have a cell phone with a sodium battery
That day is already today. They need better density for digital devices, probably, but with all these advancements, who knows.