Hacker News Reader

Comment by ExoticPearTree | Hacker News Reader

I really wish any of these companies creating super batteries that have a lot of capacity to actually market them.

A laptop/phone that needs to be recharged every few weeks… heaven.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not very optimistic for environmentalism. People's needs and wants are sort of like gasses: they expand to fill the space they're in. More efficient engines in cars often just mean they're a tiny bit more efficient and significantly faster than they actually need to be. (rather than significantly more efficient and relatively slow) Modern computers are incredibly fast, but we just keep making webpages heavier, and operating systems heavier. So although many modern computers are quite efficient when considering speed to power consumption, they could use significantly less power, except for the fact that people are always chasing the next thing.

We eat up our new efficiencies the moment we invent them.

Aka Jevon's Paradox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Eventually you will need an antimatter reactor to display a text website and run a messaging app slower than 40 years ago.

Sounds like a false dichotomy. There’s no reason we can’t have technology and luxury and a great environment.

Sadly, those who produce the technology (ie many on this forum) will happily sacrifice the environment to retain the power dynamic.

There is a reason: human nature. We could have both in principle, but time and time again we just expand until we are unable to continue. (and then until a technological breakthrough takes things further) It feels a lot like the obesity problem; the solution in principle is fairly simple, (people just need to eat less) but in practice this isn't something that's very easy for people to do. The bulk of people are unsuccessful here.

We don't really do that though, population growth is leveling off on its own. Industrial revolution pretty much broke the malthusian trap. Now growth of economies fuels growth in GDP per capita instead of growth of capita. We've also made a few rather significant technological breakthroughs against the obesity problem recently. Human nature's proven to be a bit more complex than that.

I'll concede your argument once we stop building GPU farms just so I can ask google a semantic question.

What is required is a worldview that isn't based on conspicuous consumption, but balanced growth. Left as an exercise for the reader if human nature can be compatible with this worldview.

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

looks pretty compatible to me!

Honestly kinda surprised how quick people are with the old malthusian trap arguments - weird how they still hold that much sway when it hasn't really panned out.

We evolved in an environment of conflict and scarcity. Our brains don't know how to handle the idea that we are no longer subject to those kinds of constraints.

Of course it's also possible that being perpetually on guard for limits and risks is part of how we avoid them. The catastrophes don't happen because people thought they would and took actions such as investing in next generation energy R&D to try to avoid them.

It's probably some of both.

I wonder if there's no way to implement some control mechanism in culture. A human group staying stable for a few years by rule, and allow itself some changes, capped at some % of the system.

Without any control mechanisms, human population growth is already leveling out globally (correlated with increased material prosperity and opportunity basically). So, there's not really a case for needing a mechanism like that.

In general I agree, for instance an Apple Watch crams in so much hardware, that the battery frequently lasts less than a day. Compare that to my Garmin 245, which often lasts 2 weeks on a single charge if it's not using the GPS. It doesn't do as much, but that's fine. I'd love to see more "quiet" tech which eschews the pattern you describe above, and just focusses on doing the thing it's supposed to well so you don't have to think about it. EInk is another promising technology in this area.

This isn't nearly ready for phones or laptops. Its nominal characteristics are 1.5V, 100µAh capacity, 20µA discharge: https://www.tdk-electronics.tdk.com/download/2427688/a88e3ae...

They market it for use-cases like RTC backup batteries and solar powered BLE beacons.

> approximately 100 times greater than the energy density of TDK’s conventional solid-state battery.

So, not 100 times greater than lion, but 2-4x (250–693 W⋅h/L [0]) is a lot.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

CATL also announced 500 Wh/kg batteries [1] (but I haven't found real shipments yet).

[1]: https://www.catl.com/en/news/6015.html

> A laptop/phone that needs to be recharged every few weeks… heaven.

Agreed. Unfortunately it seems like increases in battery density are soaked up by either increased energy consumption (screen resolution/brightness, processor) or decreased battery volume to make a thinner device.

I have a smartwatch that doesn't require wall charging (a Garmin Instinct with solar) and I really like the combination of solar cells, low-power processor, monochrome screen, and frugal radios.

That got me curious about a low-powered laptop and I've been eyeing an e-ink tablet with keyboard (e.g. Boox Tab or Remarkable 2) but I think it'd be a little too limited for my laptop usecases. And all the super-energy-efficient phones (e.g. e-ink) I've seen simply shrink the battery volume to offset any efficiency gains.

> that needs to be recharged every few weeks

"Yeah you're not getting that, you'll just get a smaller battery that'll give you the same 6 hours and you're gonna like it."

- every laptop manufacturer ever

I wonder what the economic reason for that would be, assuming that such a battery exists.

"But look how thin it is!"

"So think I think I can actually bend i- oh shit."

Laptop battery size has historically been limited in high performance machines by the FAA with 100Wh. I guess you could build a MacBook Air type device with insane battery life nowadays though.

Does the rest of the world have similar rules or is this a case of manufacturers aiming for the largest possible compatible market, as a sort of Brussels Effect but in a shitty least common denominator way?

There is an global IATA regulation with the same limit I don’t know which was first

Reply on news.ycombinator.com