• Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    This isn’t really an “emerging” battery tech, and there have been all kinds of hyped “breakthroughs” about hydrogen batteries for a long time. The issue here, like always, is that it does not scale, the cost is absurd, the tech is improving slower than Lithium batteries, and this essentially takes the working parts of a fuel cell but makes the storage foolishly low.

    There are also no end-of-life environmental challenges with a proton battery, since all components and materials can be rejuvenated, reused or recycled.”

    The same is true of Lithium cells, but the problem historically has been that recycling is more expensive because the volume of cells being recycled is vanishingly small. The ability to recycle a product doesn’t determine whether or not it is recycled, which is a really unfortunate truth we have to face.

    • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From the linked article

      The battery uses a carbon electrode to store hydrogen that has been split from water, and then works as a hydrogen fuel cell to produce electricity

      Chatgpt says:

      Proton batteries are an emerging energy storage technology that uses hydrogen ions (protons) to store and release energy. They split hydrogen gas into protons and electrons at the anode, with a membrane allowing only protons to pass to the cathode. At the cathode, protons combine with oxygen and electrons to generate electrical energy. Proton batteries offer high energy density and potential environmental benefits but are still in early development and face efficiency and cost challenges compared to traditional batteries

      • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t use chatgpt as a source, there is no reason to trust anything it says.

        It might be right, it might have just thrown together words that sound right, or maybe it’s completely made up.

          • 8ender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Words are how we communicate knowledge so sometimes the most probable combinations of words end up being facts

          • Thales@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “ChatGPT, please provide your rebuttal to this statement about you: […]”

            Hey! That’s a common misconception. While I do predict the next word based on patterns in the data I was trained on, I’m not just making things up. I provide information and answers based on the vast amount of text I’ve been trained on. It’s more about recognizing patterns and providing coherent, relevant responses than just “guessing.” Cheers!

          • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            while it’s technically true that it “just predicts the next word”, it’s a very misleading argument to make.

            Computers are also “just some basic logic gates” and yet we can do complex stuff with them.

            Complex behaviour can result from simple things.

            Not defending the bullshit that LLMs generate, just to point out that you have to be careful with your arguments

            • sky@codesink.io
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              right, and they’re actually pretty bad at remembering facts, that’s why we have entire institutions dedicated to maintain accurate reference material!

              why do people throw all of this out the window for advice from a dumb program I’ll never understand

            • thbb@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not really. We also have deductive capabilities (aka “system 2”) that enable us to ensure some level of proof over our statements.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What is the energy density (by volume) of this? It sounds like a rebrand of a hydrogen fuel cell, which has some limited applications, but has been supplanted by lithium-ion due to hydrogen’s low energy density and the fuel cell/electrolysis combo having poor energy efficiency.

        Edit: specified density by volume, as density by weight was never the issue

        • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The new proton battery has an energy density of 245 watt hours per kilogram, nearly three times the energy density of the team’s 2018 prototype

          • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Irrelevant to this discussion, though.

            How does it compare to competing technologies?

            And more pertinent, how small does it get? Fit one in my phone? Motorcycle? Car? Boat?

            • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You asked for the energy density, which is in the article, that’s why it’s relevant?

              For the rest of your questions, try Google?