this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
600 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

84069 readers
3264 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62209262

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Asetru@feddit.org 167 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

the breakthrough that makes EVs safer than ICE cars

Did Toyota write this? EVs already are much safer than ICEs, the headline reads like it's trying to gaslight people into thinking otherwise.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 55 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Except ones with no handles. You're supposed to burn alive in these.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Which has nothing to do with the drive train.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Except the fact that batteries burn extremely rapidly. In case of fire you have seconds to open the door and help the driver/passaners escape out of the vehicle

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Soup@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Except their weight which leads to insane amounts of energy transfer and also none of the intrastructure, like guardrails, is built to handle that much weight so low down.

The way to safer is to reduce the amount of cars.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

The way to safer is to reduce the amount of cars.

Hersey! Blasphemy! Unamerican!

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

First time I ever heard about guardrails having issues with EVs. Do you have a source for that?

Also the comment was about the fire risk, which the article was about.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Romkslrqusz@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

EVs already are much safer than ICEs

For the occupant or those who are involved in a collision with one?

EVs are heavy

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] rjek@feddit.uk 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Came here to say exactly this.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] adeoxymus@lemmy.world 109 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Maybe a bit irrelevant but why is the article calling it “China’s battery“? I feel like if the researchers were from any other countries academy of science, say France, the title would have simply been something like “scientists discover new ways for fireproof battery”. Maybe it’d say French scientists or so, but not simply “France’s battery”?

[–] Sheppa@aussie.zone 31 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Because cool China is so totally innovative unlike the boring west! We gotta hype them up, no one else ever does cool stuff only China brand is cool.

[–] greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They have been trying to murder the US and EU auto industry and dumping biblical shittons of money into battery technology. the EU and the US aren't trying to compete.

Its still an advancement for all mankind, even if my countries leadership wont let me have one.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They have been trying to murder the US and EU auto industry and dumping biblical shittons of money into battery technology. the EU and the US aren’t trying to compete.

China invests in R&D, Trump slashed scientific research.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Classic fluff piece to make China look more innovative than they actually are. I wouldn‘t be surprised if we never heard of this tech or if they recycle the same article next year. Tech ‚journalism‘ about China is a mine field of false claims and exaggerations.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 18 points 2 weeks ago

Sodium ion batteries are already in cars in China, this iteration is even safer. You should read the article.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Na+ batteries are really cool tech, and with a few more iterations of R&D they can potentially replace Li+ batteries, removing the need for rare earth elements that are toxic to people and the environment, dangerous to extract, and more often than not extracted by child slave labor (such as in Xinjiang and Congo).

It doesn't matter how you feel about China, although framing Na+ as "China's battery" is problematic for other reasons.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

These batteries are already in production cars. Have been for a while. If you don’t have access to them it’s because of your regressive protectionist government.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Because it's written as Chinese propaganda.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 64 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

This from the people that gave us fireworks... traditions disappear so fast...

[–] conartistpanda@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

God forbid someone does a humor

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 27 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

The "they catch fire" argument is fucking bonkers anyway.

If there's one thing petrol cars are famous for, it's being filled with flammable liquids that can and do leak everywhere and combust upon collision.

You can ignore them. Same with all the disingenuous cunts who complain about wind turbines "spoiling the view" who ignore the coal and gas power stations that have littered the skyline for over a century.

[–] bebabalula@feddit.dk 25 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Uh, EVs are safer than ICE cars

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

I thought sodium batteries had considerably less energy density than conventional? Is that not a problem anymore? If that hasn't been solved, I don’t see how this helps make EVs safer.

[–] EisFrei@lemmy.world 43 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

They indeed have less energy density, but I don't get your point about less safety.

They work better in high and low temperatures, can be charged a lot faster and don't degrade as fast. Sodium isn't as reactive as Lithium, lowering the risk of fires.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I recall reading the same.

Sodium batteries make loads of sense for house batteries like solar storage.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They should be the default for solar installations and grid-level storage, but are too new.

They can also replace lead-acid batteries for many applications.

Lithium will still rule microelectronics and wearables, but all lower density stuff should switch to sodium.

That being said, for cold environments like Scandinavia and the US Midwest & canada, sodium ion works better in both cold and heat swings than Lithium variants that it might be worth the tradeoff in capacity because in the long cold months, the reduced capacity and performance of lithium chemistries would completely close the gap anyways.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] gointhefridge@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Am I the only one who has never heard the term “ICE” referring to Internal Combustion Engine vehicles? I hate how headlines deliberately make new acronyms or limit context to get people to click on the article.

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

I've heard of it before

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

It's very old... decades, and when talking about EVs and hybrids, an obviously quick way to reference conventional gas engine vehicles. The term is just unfortunately carrying some more recent baggage.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›