this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
69 points (90.6% liked)
Technology
55648 readers
3610 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd disagree with that, but we certainly need more info.
There are places on Earth where 300wh would be plenty and very far away from traditional power grids. Think like remote sensing weather stations or data collection stations. So a small solar panel could power these during the day and these supercapacitors would replace a wearable battery currently in use today.
We'd need more information how these perform under various temperature and moisture conditions.
A cubic meter is just a whole lot of volume for incredibly little power. A regular 80Ah car battery has almost 4 times the power capapcity as a cubic meter of this.
Power density doesn't always matter. There are applications where space is abundant, but regular maintenance is prohibitively expensive.
In my quick example of a remote monitoring station, it may cost $10,000+ to send a helicopter out to change the 12v car battery when it dies from exposure to extreme temperatures in 5 years or less. If something like this supercapacitor can last 20+ years without every be visited, it would be more cost effective.
You wouldn't build a foundation with lithium batteries though. This is additional power from something that would take up this space anyway