10–97% in nine minutes: BYD presents second generation of Blade Battery - electrive.com
www.electrive.com
The Chinese car and battery manufacturer BYD has unveiled the second generation of its Blade Battery in China, apparently designed for very high charging

“BYD also claims to have addressed the well-known issue of lithium iron phosphate cells losing performance in cold temperatures. After the cells were stored for 24 hours at –30 degrees Celsius and therefore completely frozen, charging from 20 to 97 per cent reportedly took just twelve minutes.”

As the US sabotages the globe’s fossil fuel infrastructure at the behest of Israel, China continues to build the future that will replace it. One by one, the naysayers’ objections to EVs melt away. Can’t do cold climates, they said - fixed. Can’t cope with long journeys, they said - fixed.

As Napoleon once famously observed, ‘never interrupt your enemy while they’re making a mistake’. China must be thinking that, as the US helps hand it total dominance of the 21st century energy infrastructure.

10–97% in nine minutes: BYD presents second generation of Blade Battery

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
    82·
    19 hours ago

    Claims… Claims… Claims.

    Okay.

    Not saying they’re lying but… You know, Tesla, Elmo Musk, made claims after claims after lie after claim lie after… And none of it was true. The guy pretty much invented serial lying.

    So now when I see these extraordinary claims, I’m juuuuuuust a tiny teensie bit skeptical. I’ll believe it when an independent company verifies this, not a single second before

      • prenatal_confusion@feddit.orgEnglish
        2·
        14 hours ago

        Spoiler: musk didn’t invent serial lying but he is very good at it.

        There are others that are lying too. Possibly. Therefore: proof!

        • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          14 hours ago

          Oh I was definitely being silly. I did read several other articles that all support the claims including people who have seen live demonstrations though.

          It is also not outside of the limit of current lithium ion pack technology. Remember that they have cell phones that charge at 240w. Also, as others pointed out, you would have to have a specialized charging station to charge this fast.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    5·
    20 hours ago

    wouldnt sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure be extremely good thing, considering fossil fuels are making planet less habitable? usa doing it is the last thing i would expect.(an yes, i know they dont do it for the planet) Nice to read these kinds of surprisingly positive news for change.

  • jaykrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    17 hours ago

    As the US sabotages the globe’s fossil fuel infrastructure

    Wait, the US is actually doing something good?

  • Wander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    16·
    1 day ago

    This takes a real hit out of the new sodium batteries that CATL are bringing online right now.

    So cool that we have two batteries that basically fit all the needed requirements for most applications. Cheap, safe, made from abundant materials, fast charging, long lasting, recyclable, work in the cold.

    I get they are not the complete most energy dense batteries you would want to use in your phone or a super high end car where you can brag about having the longest range on the market.

    But for renewables and grid storage, for cars for everyday driving or even exceptional once in a year road trips. The problem has been solved with two difference battery techs, it’s amazing.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
      14·
      1 day ago

      For solar and wind you need to store energy when it’s not sunny or windy. You don’t care much about energy density for a stationary battery bank. Solar is already the cheapest way the generate energy even when you include the cost of batteries, sodium batteries just make that even cheaper. That’s huge massive improvement for the energy grid. And that saves lithium for where you need higher energy density.

      Solar filling up large sodium batteries, sodium batteries filling up the lithium batteries in you phone and car. That’s the future.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
          3·
          21 hours ago

          Maybe eventually, but at the moment EVs are under tech pricing rules where there’s early adopter pricing. New EVs are expensive because some people are willing to pay a premium to have the latest and greatest tech. While that’s still happening, those people probably aren’t going to opt for a sodium battery that won’t have as much range. And for those wanting a cheaper EV and don’t need as much range, they can save a lot more money by simply buying a used EVs.

          EV batteries last a remarkably long time, most EVs made 15 years ago are still running on their original battery. I suppose those batteries will eventually start failing and so there will be a market for sodium batteries to replace the old lithium batteries. A new sodium battery would only need to provide the same range as an old lithium battery for that market.

          So I guess yes, they will be used in cars. Replacement batteries at first, but my guess it will be longer before they’re an option in new EVs.

  • criticon@lemmy.caEnglish
    35·
    2 days ago

    One by one, the naysayers’ objections to EVs melt away. Can’t do cold climates, they said - fixed. Can’t cope with long journeys, they said - fixed.

    They also said that if everybody installed a charger in their house the grid would collapse, but suddenly there’s excess capacity for all those data centers

    • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      2 days ago

      Privately funded capacity. See Microsoft buying a god damned nuclear power plant just to pay for their own data center usage. I hate this timeline

  • pricklypearbear@lemmy.worldEnglish
    465·
    2 days ago

    Nice. Now the real question is how fast does the battery deteriorate. There is always a balance between speed, capacity, and durability.

    Seems like these batteries push more toward the speed and capacity side.

      • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
        11·
        21 hours ago

        The amount of Facebook slop accounts about car batteries catching fire is mental. Petrol of course being famously non-flammable…

    • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2711·
      19 hours ago

      Seems like these batteries push more toward the speed and capacity side.

      Why? What makes you say this? This skepticism accusation seems unfounded.

      BYD offers an industry-leading 8 year, 250,000km warranty. They are obviously confident about durability, and the proven durability of the gen1 battery is testament to their engineering prowess. The gen1 batteries are rated for 3000 to 4000 cycles. There’s a reason both Tesla and Caterpillar are starting to use BYD (finDreams) batteries.

      • JPAKx4@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        18·
        2 days ago

        I would not be surprised if BYD is the industry leader and has the best battery technology, I just also wouldn’t be surprised if they are doing a showcase of the potential of the batteries if they sacrificed longevity. It is a claim by a company and isn’t verified by independent consumers.

        Battery technology especially has a long history of performance with big astricks, so it’s good to be skeptical, even with industry leaders.

        • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
          411·
          2 days ago

          Being skeptical is well and good. Never did I say we should suspend our skepticism.

          Seems like these batteries push more toward the speed and capacity side.

          What evidence is there to support the idea that BYD intentionally designs more towards performance than durability? The fact that OP claims that the world’s champion of LFP designs more towards performance just shows how they’re talking straight out their ass, and have very little understanding of battery chemistry or engineering.

          • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
            122·
            2 days ago

            Never did I say we should suspend our skepticism.

            This skepticism seems unfounded

            Not explicitly, no, but you certainly implied it.

            • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
              13·
              20 hours ago

              Please show me where I said we should suspend all skepticism about BYD.

              It turns out that sometimes, general skepticism is warranted, but skepticism about specific engineering design choices that you are completely ignorant to, is not.

              And further, “BYD designs more for performance over durability” is not skepticism. That is a concrete accusation that has no basis in reality.

              Im not going to have a philosophical argument about when skepticism is allowed or not.

              The original claim was: BYD intentionally designs for performance over durability. There is no reason anyone could think this other than sinophobia.

      • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
        114·
        2 days ago

        Why? What makes you say this? This skepticism seems unfounded

        Basic physics knowledge? Why would we disregard that based on the word of a corporation whose entire goal is to convince us to buy their products?

        Warranties are a great way to build trust, but it’s still based on a promise, not the reality if the physical world. When a resource rich company wants to dominate a market, and push out competition, they will often promise these sorts of things to capture a market.

        I won’t say that the technology isnt possible, or that they’re not providing… but going all in all at once based entirely on promises seems premature. And trying to shut down any potential criticism because of it seems suspect at best.

        If you want people to trust in this, maybe engage with them instead of trying to shout them down.

        • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
          79·
          2 days ago

          If you want people to trust in this,

          My point is not to run PR for BYD. I’m not trying to get people to trust a corporation. I’m just shutting down FUD (that is most likely rooted in sinophobia).

          Basic physics knowledge? Why would we disregard that based on the word of a corporation whose entire goal is to convince us to buy their products?

          Yes, I understand the basic physics since I am an electrical engineer and work in the automotive space, and I integrate batteries into battery electric vehicles.

          Regardless of your stance on warranties, corporate competition, or China… the original claim was “Seems like these batteries push more toward the speed and capacity side.”

          Where is the evidence to support this claim? For what reason could anyone think that BYD’s design philosophy caters to performance over durability? That is just pure fucken FUD.

          This happens all too often:

          • An engineering feat is achieved
          • A layman hops into the discussion to inform everyone about the concept of engineering tradeoffs (as if that is groundbreaking)
          • The layman gives their uninformed opinion about why they think the tradeoff was ill considered

          Here’s the simple truth: BYD’s entire battery design philosophy revolves around durability. If BYD was truly solely interested in battery density and charge speed, then why are they the primary champion of LFP batteries? If you were truly interested in performance and speed, LFP would be your last choice for battery chemistry. If anything, BYD leans more towards durability, safety, and longevity over performance - as is evidenced by their choice to make their entire design philosophy revolve around LFP. Teslas and Lucids lean towards Nickel Cobalt because Nickel Cobalt battery chemistry is fundamentally more performant than LFP batterys. THAT is “Basic Physics”.

          https://www.evlithium.com/Blog/lfp-vs-nmc-batteries-comparison.html

          So, Who’s the Winner?

          The answer isn’t black and white. Both LFP and NMC batteries have their strengths and weaknesses. LFP batteries trade off some performance for greater safety and longevity, while NMC batteries offer higher performance at the expense of some safety and lifespan.

          The “winner” really depends on your specific needs. If you’re looking for high performance, especially in applications like EVs, NMC is likely your best bet. But if you prioritize longevity and safety—especially for DIY projects or energy storage—LFP batteries are the clear choice.

          In the end, whether you go with LFP or NMC, it’s all about matching the battery to your needs. For most everyday uses, especially in energy storage, LFP batteries are hard to beat for their combination of durability and safety.

          • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
            106·
            2 days ago

            So your refutation of skepticism is “you must be racist, so we should disregard this skepticism”?

            You didn’t refute the physics or the claim, only showed that the company super promised they’d fix it if it went wrong.

            If your background is in engineering, why didn’t you start from that instead of going into PR mode? It certainly seems more like damage control than alleviating actual concerns.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      This is from improved tech, not from (un)balancing speed, capacity and durability. That idea doesn’t hold to improved technology.

        • zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          124·
          2 days ago

          It is quite simple. If you take the exact same technology, then it is some sort of a triangle between quality, speed and capacity. But saying that it always is like that is implying, that there are no technological advancements. Li-Ion, Li-Po, whatever materials you use, the products you use today are way better than 10 years ago.

    • P00ptart@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Different technology. It’s like saying a boat last longer than a plane because it’s slower.

      • pricklypearbear@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        Its lithium based battery. Not really a different technology. Its more of an improvement on the existing technology.

  • Hirom@beehaw.orgEnglish
    14·
    2 days ago

    The title is editorialized, doesn’t reflect the article actual headline.

    I’m not saying it’s innacurate. I’m saying it’s better to provide commentary in a comment, rather than altering the title.

  • aim_at_me@lemmy.nzEnglish
    141·
    2 days ago

    Batteries don’t have ranges? The title is a bit annoying lol.

    • nieminen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      20 hours ago

      Fair, but a battery designed for vehicles with a known energy density can be easily described as having a range, because it currently has one primary application.

      • Zetta@mander.xyzEnglish
        3·
        20 hours ago

        Not really. The efficiency of vehicles varies significantly. The range of the monstrous EV Hummer is not going to be the same as a more efficient vehicle, even with the same pack.

        The title of the article is stupid and journalists should stop being stupid for clicks.

  • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
    71·
    2 days ago

    As the US sabotages the globe’s fossil fuel infrastructure at the behest of Israel

    Wait … so maybe this war is actually based?

    Yes! Let’s attack every oil-producing country in the world, cause oil prices to skyrocket, and thus cause widespread adoption of EVs and renewable energy. It’s the perfect plan!

    • Hirom@beehaw.orgEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      The USA produces lots of fossiel fuel, enough for its own consumption and then some for export.

      It’s not obvious, at least to me, that high oil prices would negatively affect (US) oil companies.

  • eleitl@lemmy.zipEnglish
    52·
    2 days ago

    And if the Hormuz blockage continues China will be unable to manufacture them. Nor deliver them.

      • eleitl@lemmy.zipEnglish
        11·
        19 hours ago

        40% of China’s oil supply goes through Hormuz. 25-30% for LNG. Manufacturing and shipping will be severely affected.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      2 days ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Nations_Railway_Corridor

      On May 9, 2023, the first trial run of cargo from Iran to Afghanistan via the Khaf-Herat railway was completed. This shipment included 17 wagons that transferred 655 tons of railway equipment that will be used in the further construction of the rail line. The Khaf-Herat railway is 225 kilometers long, with 140 km of the railway track traversing Afghanistan and the remaining 85 km running through Iran. The construction of the Khaf-Herat railway line, which links Khaf in eastern Iran with Herat in western Afghanistan, began back in 2007.

      …

      The railway is expected to especially benefit the landlocked Afghanistan, which would gain direct access to the Iranian seaports of Chabahar and Bandar Abbas. Through Iran, the line can connect to the Turkish railway network.

      Incidentally, as the US goes to war with Iran, Pakistan is going to war with Afghanistan.

      And everyone’s continuing to freak out about the Chinese economy usurping the role once held by the NATO block. Crazy how all this happens at once.

      • heyWhatsay@slrpnk.netEnglish
        12·
        1 day ago

        How prone they are to fire relies on quality control and preventing damage. But EV battery fires are more difficult to control than petroleum fires.