394
submitted 10 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 117 points 10 months ago

Neat.

Remind me to check back in 5 years to see if this ever actually materializes.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 65 points 10 months ago
[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Sorry, I thought we'd all already seen this dozens of times before.

[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well, I’m still waiting for the graphene solar panels, cold fusion, flying cars, drone deliveries, metal nanoparticle engines, healing nano bots and what not.

I wonder if we’re going to build a Dyson sphere before some of those other things become a reality.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Drone deliveries seemed promising with Amazon, but the core company is so toxic that any tangible product that didn't come from Lab126 is doomed. Zipline actually has a shot and is actively operating at a massive scale in Rwanda.

[-] KinNectar@kbin.run 30 points 10 months ago

@ooli tl/Dr "Photoncycle
Brandtzaeg holds up a chalk-looking substance: “With this, you can store electricity 20 times as densely as in a lithium battery.”

“We're locking up the hydrogen molecules in a solid to basically fix them. We're using a reversible, high-temperature fuel cell, so we're assisting a fuel cell which both can produce hydrogen and electricity in the same cell,” he says.

That means no need to cool the hydrogen down, making it non-flammable and giving it a higher density than an ion-lithium battery"

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

I wonder what's the volumetric energy density, historically that has been a bigger issue than gravimetric energy density.

[-] KinNectar@kbin.run 13 points 10 months ago

@JohnDClay

Good question, this article is pretty fluffy, not a lot of hard data. Reads kind of like a fluffed up press release honestly.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 10 months ago

This was totally a fluff investment article for funding.

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 3 points 10 months ago

You don't need to @ people here, homie

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 7 points 10 months ago

According to their site:

A storage system of 3 m3 can store up to 10,000 kWh of energy

So about 3.33 MWh per cubic meter, 3.33 kWh per liter, or 3.33 Wh per cubic centimeter.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hmm, if that's correct, that's even higher than liquid hydrogen, which would be really impressive.

Energy densities

Edit: Looks like their gravimetric energy density is 3.5kWh/kg

Edit 2: here's a comparison for batteries

Battery Cell Energy Density

[-] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 months ago

Since it's solid hydrogen I think it's to be expected, however I didn't see any information regarding energy losses which I imagine would be quite high when you have those kinds of cooling requirements.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

This is why I hate marketing pushes. If they're a good-faith business, the efficiency needs to be within shooting distance of reasonable against costs. But as we learned from the artificial meat industry (that ultimately admitted we've already probably reached lifetime price/quality/scale limits from the methodologies they're using) brutal honesty doesn't get you investors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 2 points 10 months ago

Thats in the ballpark of a year of usage from a household. Neat if true.

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The article is light on details, but it claims they're storing the hydrogen as a solid - not as a gas. Solids are generally about a thousand times more compact than a gas.

That's hardly a revolutionary thing - there are hydrogen powered cars on the road and those don't use hydrogen as a gas either. Those cars don't make much sense compared to lithium, but mostly only because there's almost nowhere in the world you buy hydrogen for your car. That's not an issue if you're producing your own hydrogen at home.

[-] First@programming.dev 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They don't? When the Toyota hydrogen cars were introduced here around 2015, one of the issues were that a full tank of gas would dilute through the tank walls within a week. From the marketing material of the latest Toyota Mirai, it seems that they still use Hydrogen stored in gas form, boasting improvements in a 3-layer tank that is tested for 235% of the pressure that the gas is stored at, compared to 150% for regular gas containers.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 26 points 10 months ago

I've said it before and I'll say it again: most new hydrogen technology is snake oil.

Its main source right now is as a byproduct to petrochemical processing, so a lot of the motivation behind it is really about maintaining these production lines, rather than "going green".

Some things do require hydrogen, eg science applications. Hydrogen can be made using green electricity, but the energy cost is incredibly high. In order to fulfill just the things that require hydrogen, where there is no other alternative, we would need 3x the global renewable capacity solely dedicated to hydrogen production. If we start adding mass transport into that mix, or things like this hydrogen heating system, then we're only exacerbating the problem.

We need our renewable electricity to power things that already use electricity. We don't have enough capacity to be pouring it away into all the potential uses for hydrogen - which are often far less efficient. You lose so much energy creating hydrogen (as well as losses due to leaks) that you may as well just power it with electricity directly.

[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

There could not have put up a bigger sign saying, "I didn't bother to read the article."

Otherwise I don't disagree with most of what you're claiming. But most of the problems you posed do not even apply to this relatively new system.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] mayonaise_met@feddit.nl 20 points 10 months ago

I don't want my house to be self-sufficient. I want my street and neighborhood to be self-sufficient. I already use my neighbors excess solar for reasonable prices.

My city wants to be off natural gas in 2030 and my neighborhood is in the pilot to transition first. I don't necessarily want a huge heat pump attached to my house, and I don't want a huge energy storage solution in my small garden.

There is city land around our housing block with plenty of room for a solution that can serve the whole street. I hope the city is going to propose something like that for us.

[-] golli@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Agreed. Not that i dislike people doing stuff by themself on a small scale, but i really wish the focus would be more on larger scale projects and giving people easy access to invest in those.

Dont make everyone get a small solar panel and a tiny battery in their house. Let them invest in something like a large wind turbine in their area and maybe directly reap some of those benefits.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

They don't actually say what the efficiency of it is, only that the inneficiency is mainly heat and "70% of home energy needs are for heat" which makes sense in Scandinavia but makes less and less sense the further South you are, plus it massivelly depends on being able to capture and use that heat (can you use it for cooking or only for environmental heating?).

Ultimatelly efficiency and price are what makes almost all the difference.

That said, I hope this turns out to be a proper solution: we definitelly need home energy storage solutions which have much higher energy density and lower cost per mWh that the ones we have now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] obinice@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

We already have efficient enough solar panels to make our homes self sufficient, we just can't afford to buy them.

Even if we could, the power supply industry would see it happening, bribe and persuade the government to make it illegal to go off grid (I'm sure their solicitors would come up with "good" reasons that we should be stopped), to save their poor little shareholders.

No way will they go down without a fight. Would I love to go off grid? Sure. If I had a few grand of spending money I could easily do it. But that's just one person, no way they'd let the entire country do it.

[-] tun@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

This is just storage. The article describes that the battery will use nearby solar panel for electricity.

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

There's a very good reason you don't want the entire country to go off-grid, and that net-metering is a plague that only serves as a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

A large chunk of electric costs are fixed costs. Wiring, power station upkeep, more wiring, transformers, storm damage, etc. Whether you personally use twice or half as much power as the median household does not matter for this. So every net-metered kWh you send on the grid, everybody ELSE ends up ponying up the infrastructure costs for (nevermind the enormous production-side costs of fighting against the duck curve).
A partial solution to make this fairer is therefore to either tax solar installations, use non-net-metering (with digital meters), or make grid connectivity a fixed cost in the electric bill.

For people who are completely off-grid (meaning not only do they not pull any electricity from the grid ever, they are not connected AT ALL and therefore do not incur infrastructure cost on everyone else), it's not as bad but sill not great because the grid operates on economies of scale. So in (semi-)urban areas it's still a net loss for society when someone goes off-grid.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 10 months ago

You know what else is a solid form of hydrogen?

Ice.

I wish they went into more deatil about what kind of solid fuel cell system they're working with - they say they're trapping hydrogen molecules in some kind of molecular lattice, i.e. a crystal of some sort perhaps?

Anyway, I hate patents but understand why you need them... They just seems to slow down progress.

[-] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Patents trade public disclosure of technology for a limited time exclusive use of the technology. Without them companies are less likely to publicly disclose any technologies they develop.

[-] niisyth@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

Never thought about it that way but it is an excellent policy. Thank You.

Now if only we could get the goddamn Mickey Mouse in public domanin.

[-] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

The idea/spirit of patents is a good one.

It enables generic medicine - as patented medicine needs to publicly disclose methods. It also allows the public to know what is in the patented product because it is public info.

It also makes iteration easier, as everyone can build off and on top of the patent info.

However, patent abuse is a real issue. Using patents to stifle others innovation and create monopolies. Also patents that come about from publicly funded research often give private companies exclusive rights to profit from work funded by the public.

Mickey mouse is copyright, which is a different beast. It's also good because it protects people producing easily copied work such as writing, music and images. However, the mouse has lobbied his way into making the copyright protection excessively long. It should be much shorter, 30 years since publication would be reasonable - it would be a tremendous victory if we got it down to 50.

[-] marius851000@lemmy.mariusdavid.fr 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Next year (1st january 2024), it'll be in the US (but just the first version from Steamboat Willie and The Gallopin' Gaucho)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_in_public_domain

[-] Sightline@lemmy.ml 10 points 10 months ago
[-] Tvkan@feddit.de 8 points 10 months ago

Always has been. In many ways, Lemmy resembles the Reddit of 10 years ago.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 7 points 10 months ago

The good Reddit.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

I dont see any electrical units in this article

[-] totallynotarobot@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago

Watt?? That's a heck of an ohmission.

[-] TurboDiesel@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Well don't get all amped up about it; you've gotta stay grounded.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Technus@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago

The company's website quotes a storage density of 3.5 kWh/kg and a storage system taking up 3 cubic meters beving able to store 100,000 kWh: https://www.photoncycle.com/technology

I tried to find the patent but it sounds like the application process isn't complete yet.

These are the kind of claims you hear from a startup seeking its next round of funding. I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SimonSaysStuff@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

This is great and a step in the right direction, roll on self-sufficient streets, villages, and towns.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
394 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

58133 readers
4357 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