68
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago

Lithium batteries are already 90% efficient, how do you get 20% better efficiency than that?

Is he talking about density instead?

[-] Carl@hexbear.net 15 points 2 days ago

I skipped the video and went straight to the source article

According to the company, sodium-powered heavy trucks showed around 15% lower energy consumption per kilometre compared with lithium-ion equivalents, while deeper discharge capability enabled roughly 20% longer range under typical conditions. The company stated that these results indicate that sodium battery heavy trucks have moved from technical validation into early-stage commercial application.

So "efficiency" means "range" and it's a confluence of multiple factors that allegedly allow sodium batteries to use more of the power they store and use their power more efficiently. The article notes that sodium batteries are still more expensive than lithium-ion, but pretty much every major EV maker on China has R&D programs on them at the moment, leading to speculation that the costs will converge around 2027 and allow this battery technology to take over commercially.

[-] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

That's pretty impressive

[-] fluffy8192@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago

maybe it's 20% less inefficient.

so 90% efficient could be called 10% inefficient. and 20% of 10% is 2%. so 20% better efficiency gets you a 92% efficient battery.

it's a stretch yes, but stranger things have happened in the funny lands of title crafting

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago

that sounds like something marketing would come up with

[-] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago

Could be gains in weight as well. A significantly lighter battery will have gains in range efficiency for a vehicle if it was much lighter that the other.

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

Lol good point. Since it's a proportional comparison there's got to be a way to make it make sense. Depends on the efficiency calculation itself though.

Could be a 20% decrease in energy loss so 10% * 20% = 2% Meaning overall efficiency is up to 92%. Doesn't exactly seem honest but 🤷

Could be cold weather performance.

[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago

We're so fucking back (source: I didn't read anything but the headline and have not yet accounted for the other comments)

[-] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago

Renewable energy doomers in shambles

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 23 points 3 days ago

idk a lot of these green energy youtubers are uncritical glazers. don't believe shit if it's "a company says"

[-] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[-] onwardknave@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Why does it feel like every time I watch the Electric Viking channel, it's always rosy optimism and hyperbole? Can someone explain what gives?

this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
68 points (100.0% liked)

technology

24320 readers
251 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS