They're now commercially available as a more expensive, heavier alternative to lithium batteries with the advantage that they tolerate low temperatures better. They're expected to stay heavier (so be a bad fit for cars except in very cold places) but get cheaper than lithium ones (so be a good fit for things that don't move much).
There are hundreds of chemical interactions that produce electricity and only a handful have been seriously looked at for batteries I read maybe 14 years back or so. I bet there are other better options for lightweight batteries as well.
Our system(s) seem exceedingly bad at developing new and better technologies. Entrenched interests kill new tech that could rival it for one thing, for another the profit motive alone just doesn't provide for finding new and better ways of doing things.
What is frustrating is the large percent of the population that assumes however we do it now must be the best way, and rejects any better ways or new possibilities.
For plenty of industries, that kind of thing is true, but there are loads of manufacturers of batteries so forming a cartel and agreeing not to bother with any new technologies is impractical, and buying out new competitors with new technology and stifling it only works if your competitors also stifle everything new that they buy. There are a bunch of nation states backing their domestic battery producers and desperate for any way for them to outcompete those of other countries, and cartels tend not to form between state-backed companies from geopolitical rivals.
The big thing stopping new technology appearing is that we're pretty good at making lithium-based batteries, so you generally end up with a better battery for less R&D effort by making a small improvement to lithium batteries than coming up with something new, even if the theoretical limits for the new thing would blow modern batteries out the water. Sodium batteries have the advantage that lots of the knowledge that applies to lithium batteries is still useful, so the road from theoretical to good is much shorter, and we're already using all the lithium we can extract and that's representing a large fraction of a battery's cost, so there's a market for something cheaper even if it's worse.
even if the theoretical limits for the new thing would blow modern batteries out the water.
The theoretical limit of energy storage density is extremely close to lithium ion batteries. At least as far as the actual lithum storage medium goes. Obviously there is a non-zero amount of mass in a battery that isn't energy storage, but there doesn't exist even a theoretical substance that would be better at storing energy then current lithium ion tech.
They're now commercially available as a more expensive, heavier alternative to lithium batteries with the advantage that they tolerate low temperatures better. They're expected to stay heavier (so be a bad fit for cars except in very cold places) but get cheaper than lithium ones (so be a good fit for things that don't move much).
There are hundreds of chemical interactions that produce electricity and only a handful have been seriously looked at for batteries I read maybe 14 years back or so. I bet there are other better options for lightweight batteries as well.
Our system(s) seem exceedingly bad at developing new and better technologies. Entrenched interests kill new tech that could rival it for one thing, for another the profit motive alone just doesn't provide for finding new and better ways of doing things.
What is frustrating is the large percent of the population that assumes however we do it now must be the best way, and rejects any better ways or new possibilities.
For plenty of industries, that kind of thing is true, but there are loads of manufacturers of batteries so forming a cartel and agreeing not to bother with any new technologies is impractical, and buying out new competitors with new technology and stifling it only works if your competitors also stifle everything new that they buy. There are a bunch of nation states backing their domestic battery producers and desperate for any way for them to outcompete those of other countries, and cartels tend not to form between state-backed companies from geopolitical rivals.
The big thing stopping new technology appearing is that we're pretty good at making lithium-based batteries, so you generally end up with a better battery for less R&D effort by making a small improvement to lithium batteries than coming up with something new, even if the theoretical limits for the new thing would blow modern batteries out the water. Sodium batteries have the advantage that lots of the knowledge that applies to lithium batteries is still useful, so the road from theoretical to good is much shorter, and we're already using all the lithium we can extract and that's representing a large fraction of a battery's cost, so there's a market for something cheaper even if it's worse.
The theoretical limit of energy storage density is extremely close to lithium ion batteries. At least as far as the actual lithum storage medium goes. Obviously there is a non-zero amount of mass in a battery that isn't energy storage, but there doesn't exist even a theoretical substance that would be better at storing energy then current lithium ion tech.